Another FSFS vs BDB Performance Issue

[Troy Curtis Jr <tr...@gmail.com>]

I previously commented on BDB improved checkout performance for a
large repository with lots of revs.  Today I ran into another major
BDB performance advantage, hotcopy to an NFS drive (possibly to a
local drive also, but I did not test that case).

My Test Repo:
Sources imported from an RCS directory, with the FSFS version having a
few modifications made to clean out some of the artifacts from the
conversion (unamed branches, ~deleted~ files, etc.), hence the
revision number discrepancy:

FSFS
60239 Revs
2.1 GB
hotcopy to a NFS directory: 33 minutes 29 seconds

BDB
598?? Revs
1.8 GB
hotcopy to a NFS directory:  6 minutes some odd seconds

That is a really big difference!!  Ultimately I believe it is simply
the number of files in the db directory that the hot-copy must go
through, but it is sure a big difference!  Of course if you are doing
nightly backups with this that time diff is not a big deal.  However,
I am using it to mirror my repo onto a removable hard disk to take to
a remote (and disconnected) location, so that time diff matters!

I just thought I would point out this issue with the hope that it
gives people more data when determining whether BDB or FSFS is better
for their use.  But man I am going to start cussing the first time a
user comes up to me saying the repo is broke and it turns out to be
"wedged"!

Troy

-- 
"Beware of spyware. If you can, use the Firefox browser." - USA Today
Download now at http://getfirefox.com
Registered Linux User #354814 ( http://counter.li.org/)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org