You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com> on 2014/12/10 22:01:17 UTC
SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Good Day SVN Experts,
I recently upgraded svn v 1.8.9 to v 1.8.10 from Linux OS to Solaris OS.
Linux machine was desktop machine with low specs and Solaris machine is
T1000 server class machine. Now issue we faced is when we start rsync from
Solaris machine disk usage of machine goes to 100 % and machine goes to un
responsive mode while on previous Linux machine we have not faced any issue.
This thing is very strange for me because svn should work properly on
Solaris machine because that machine have better specs but result is
opposite. One thing which we have changed on Solaris machine is the
structure of repositories; on previous server path for repos was /u/ ,
/us/local , /usr/wb etc but on new Solaris server we have merged all
repositories on one path which is /u/ should this can cause the disk usage
to 100 % because now data is fetching from one path; or there is another
issue. Can someone shed light on this issue.
Regards
Mohsin Abbas
--
View this message in context: http://subversion.1072662.n5.nabble.com/SVN-Issue-On-Solaris-OS-tp191202.html
Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mohsin Abbas <mo...@gmail.com>.
>I'm assuming that this bulky repository has a long history, with
>thousands of transactions, and you're doing a raw file-system based
>rsync?
What is raw file-system based rsync ? Can you shed some light on it?
>Make sure you have rsync version 3.x, to start with, and *do not* try
>to run it over some poorly tuned intermediate network file system such
>as NFSv3. And frankly, Sun hardware is rapidly being phased out. I
>haven't seen anyone using it for production in more than 2 years, only
>in legacy apps that they have no interest or willingness to change
>anything for.
We are using 3.x version of rsync. Yes your are right we had bad experience
on Solaris OS of running svn while on Linux OS performance was good.
Cheers,
Mohsin
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>Assume you realize that rsync is not part of Subversion?
> >
> > Yes rsync is separate utility which is used for syncing purpose . Rsync
> > nothing to do with subversion.
>
> I'm assuming that this bulky repository has a long history, with
> thousands of transactions, and you're doing a raw file-system based
> rsync?
>
> Make sure you have rsync version 3.x, to start with, and *do not* try
> to run it over some poorly tuned intermediate network file system such
> as NFSv3. And frankly, Sun hardware is rapidly being phased out. I
> haven't seen anyone using it for production in more than 2 years, only
> in legacy apps that they have no interest or willingness to change
> anything for.
>
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Assume you realize that rsync is not part of Subversion?
>
> Yes rsync is separate utility which is used for syncing purpose . Rsync
> nothing to do with subversion.
I'm assuming that this bulky repository has a long history, with
thousands of transactions, and you're doing a raw file-system based
rsync?
Make sure you have rsync version 3.x, to start with, and *do not* try
to run it over some poorly tuned intermediate network file system such
as NFSv3. And frankly, Sun hardware is rapidly being phased out. I
haven't seen anyone using it for production in more than 2 years, only
in legacy apps that they have no interest or willingness to change
anything for.
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com>.
>Assume you realize that rsync is not part of Subversion?
Yes rsync is separate utility which is used for syncing purpose . Rsync
nothing to do with subversion.
--
View this message in context: http://subversion.1072662.n5.nabble.com/SVN-Issue-On-Solaris-OS-tp191202p191210.html
Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 10, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This really shouldn't matter, unless you now have a directory with tens
>> of thousands of entries in it. And your use of the term "100% disk
>> usage" seems to be about I/O, not capacity (which is quite strange). On
>> the other hand, if you're actually rsyncing lots of data to or from your
>> machine, it's not surprising that you use up all available disk
>> bandwidth. But I still don't know how Subversion would be related to rsync.
>
> We have 900 GB total space on server in which half of the space is free on
> server. We have 430 GB data in all repos so by r syncing all disk bandwidth
> of server is being consumed that caused 100 % disk usage.That the point
> which i understand.
>
>
> Mohsin
>
Assume you realize that rsync is not part of Subversion?
Mark
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com>.
>This really shouldn't matter, unless you now have a directory with tens
>of thousands of entries in it. And your use of the term "100% disk
>usage" seems to be about I/O, not capacity (which is quite strange). On
>the other hand, if you're actually rsyncing lots of data to or from your
>machine, it's not surprising that you use up all available disk
>bandwidth. But I still don't know how Subversion would be related to rsync.
We have 900 GB total space on server in which half of the space is free on
server. We have 430 GB data in all repos so by r syncing all disk bandwidth
of server is being consumed that caused 100 % disk usage.That the point
which i understand.
Mohsin
--
View this message in context: http://subversion.1072662.n5.nabble.com/SVN-Issue-On-Solaris-OS-tp191202p191208.html
Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com>.
>Subversion's SPARC Solaris buildbot slave is a T1000. It takes about
>6min to build Subversion and 25min to run the regression tests on a RAM
>disk. By way of comparison, my Linux desktop is about one year old and a
>similar build is less than 30sec and the tests take less than 3min. The
>regression tests do not reliably predict the performance of real
>Subversion servers since the data sets in the tests are tiny, but this
>shows that for some workloads a T1000 is an order of magnitude slower
>than an x86.
That's make sense. Thanks for your feedback. Now I am sure issue is with
machine T1000 which responds slow then desktop Linux machine. I need to
migrate svn on T2000 or above specs machine for better performance.
Regards
Mohsin
--
View this message in context: http://subversion.1072662.n5.nabble.com/SVN-Issue-On-Solaris-OS-tp191202p191216.html
Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
> I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
> posting these machines were not good with SVN. Aren't these the ones
> capable of running a lot of threads but are very slow single thread
> machines? The processor is only like 1 Ghz I believe.
>
> So maybe with an Apache server receiving a lot of concurrent requests where
> all of those threads can be used this machine would be OK. But otherwise,
> I'd assume it would be much slower than an x86 machine of any kind.
Subversion's SPARC Solaris buildbot slave is a T1000. It takes about
6min to build Subversion and 25min to run the regression tests on a RAM
disk. By way of comparison, my Linux desktop is about one year old and a
similar build is less than 30sec and the tests take less than 3min. The
regression tests do not reliably predict the performance of real
Subversion servers since the data sets in the tests are tiny, but this
shows that for some workloads a T1000 is an order of magnitude slower
than an x86.
--
Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 10.12.2014 22:37, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com
> <ma...@wandisco.com>> wrote:
>
> On 10.12.2014 22:01, Mohsin wrote:
>
> > This thing is very strange for me because svn should work
> properly on
> > Solaris machine because that machine have better specs but result is
> > opposite.
>
> What are "better specs", exactly? It's not at all obvious to me that a
> SunFire T1000 would have "better specs" than an ordinary off-the-shelf
> PC running Linux. For example, by default, the T1000 has about 80GB of
> disk ... compared to about 10 times as much on your common desktop
> box.
> So, again, you'll have to be more precise in your comparisons.
>
>
> I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
> posting these machines were not good with SVN. Aren't these the ones
> capable of running a lot of threads but are very slow single thread
> machines? The processor is only like 1 Ghz I believe.
It's an UltraSparc, around 1GHz; theoretically 8-way multi-threaded,
with shared L2 cache (IIRC, somewhat equivalent to x86 hyperthreading,
but a decade older technology).
> So maybe with an Apache server receiving a lot of concurrent requests
> where all of those threads can be used this machine would be OK. But
> otherwise, I'd assume it would be much slower than an x86 machine of
> any kind.
Absolutely. The SunFires, and any other Sparc machines, have not kept up
with the rest of the world when it comes to performance (and "specs" in
general).
Here's the relevant docco:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19076-01/t1k.srvr/819-3245-12/819-3245-12.pdf
You'll note that it says "Copyright 2007" ... not exactly bleeding edge.
-- Brane
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mohsin Abbas <mo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for your suggestion at least you have provided me a guide : )
Regards
Mohsin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 04:01:10PM -0700, Mohsin wrote:
> > >I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
> > posting these machines were not >good with SVN.
> >
> > If this is the case then we should consider Linux machines which are
> working
> > fine with svn . I think we should prefer Linux machines for svn.
> >
> >
> > Mohsin
>
> I'm running a T1000 and would say its disks are way slow to run a high
> perfomance svn server with. These machines are nice for running several
> network-bound services in isolated logical domains in a single box.
> But busy Subversion servers need fast disks. It's probably OK for a
> dozen users or so but beyond that I'd consider something else.
>
> BTW, if you ever end up replacing such servers and would like to donate
> them to an open source project instead of dumping them, please let me know
> :-)
>
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 04:01:10PM -0700, Mohsin wrote:
> >I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
> posting these machines were not >good with SVN.
>
> If this is the case then we should consider Linux machines which are working
> fine with svn . I think we should prefer Linux machines for svn.
>
>
> Mohsin
I'm running a T1000 and would say its disks are way slow to run a high
perfomance svn server with. These machines are nice for running several
network-bound services in isolated logical domains in a single box.
But busy Subversion servers need fast disks. It's probably OK for a
dozen users or so but beyond that I'd consider something else.
BTW, if you ever end up replacing such servers and would like to donate
them to an open source project instead of dumping them, please let me know :-)
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mohsin <mo...@gmail.com>.
>I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
posting these machines were not >good with SVN.
If this is the case then we should consider Linux machines which are working
fine with svn . I think we should prefer Linux machines for svn.
Mohsin
--
View this message in context: http://subversion.1072662.n5.nabble.com/SVN-Issue-On-Solaris-OS-tp191202p191211.html
Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 10.12.2014 22:01, Mohsin wrote:
>
> > This thing is very strange for me because svn should work properly on
> > Solaris machine because that machine have better specs but result is
> > opposite.
>
> What are "better specs", exactly? It's not at all obvious to me that a
> SunFire T1000 would have "better specs" than an ordinary off-the-shelf
> PC running Linux. For example, by default, the T1000 has about 80GB of
> disk ... compared to about 10 times as much on your common desktop box.
> So, again, you'll have to be more precise in your comparisons.
>
I searched the archives without luck, but thought I recall some people
posting these machines were not good with SVN. Aren't these the ones
capable of running a lot of threads but are very slow single thread
machines? The processor is only like 1 Ghz I believe.
So maybe with an Apache server receiving a lot of concurrent requests where
all of those threads can be used this machine would be OK. But otherwise,
I'd assume it would be much slower than an x86 machine of any kind.
The questions brane asked are probably more relevant though. It seems this
is either a question for rsync mailing lists, or you should take that out
of the equation and make this about SVN and why.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: SVN Issue On Solaris OS
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 10.12.2014 22:01, Mohsin wrote:
> Good Day SVN Experts,
>
> I recently upgraded svn v 1.8.9 to v 1.8.10 from Linux OS to Solaris OS.
> Linux machine was desktop machine with low specs and Solaris machine is
> T1000 server class machine. Now issue we faced is when we start rsync from
> Solaris machine disk usage of machine goes to 100 % and machine goes to un
> responsive mode while on previous Linux machine we have not faced any issue.
I don't understand what rsync would have to do with Subversion.
Also, you really should be more precise in your reports: if by "disk
usage of machine goes to 100%" you mean that your file system is full,
it's not at all surprising that the system grinds to a halt.
> This thing is very strange for me because svn should work properly on
> Solaris machine because that machine have better specs but result is
> opposite.
What are "better specs", exactly? It's not at all obvious to me that a
SunFire T1000 would have "better specs" than an ordinary off-the-shelf
PC running Linux. For example, by default, the T1000 has about 80GB of
disk ... compared to about 10 times as much on your common desktop box.
So, again, you'll have to be more precise in your comparisons.
> One thing which we have changed on Solaris machine is the
> structure of repositories; on previous server path for repos was /u/ ,
> /us/local , /usr/wb etc but on new Solaris server we have merged all
> repositories on one path which is /u/ should this can cause the disk usage
> to 100 % because now data is fetching from one path; or there is another
> issue. Can someone shed light on this issue.
This really shouldn't matter, unless you now have a directory with tens
of thousands of entries in it. And your use of the term "100% disk
usage" seems to be about I/O, not capacity (which is quite strange). On
the other hand, if you're actually rsyncing lots of data to or from your
machine, it's not surprising that you use up all available disk
bandwidth. But I still don't know how Subversion would be related to rsync.
-- Brane