Re: general server performance (was Re: apache svn server memory usage?)

[Chris Hecker <ch...@d6.com>]

> > Right, but even checkouts seem pokey...are they considered
> > transactions as far as disk syncing as well (I assume not)?
>I'm talking about database transactions, and yes, quite a few of those
>take place during checkout.

Ah, doesn't it seem a bit wrong to be doing logged transactions for 
read-only operations (like up and co)?  It seems like there'd be a lighter 
weight BDB process for that.

Chris



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

Re: general server performance (was Re: apache svn server memory usage?)

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Chris Hecker wrote:

>
>> > Right, but even checkouts seem pokey...are they considered
>> > transactions as far as disk syncing as well (I assume not)?
>> I'm talking about database transactions, and yes, quite a few of those
>> take place during checkout.
>
>
> Ah, doesn't it seem a bit wrong to be doing logged transactions for
> read-only operations (like up and co)?  It seems like there'd be a
> lighter weight BDB process for that.

:-) It's not that simple. A SVN checkout or update isn't just about
reading from the database.

Of course, there are lots of places in the code where we could (and IMHO
should) stop using transactions.There's even an issue about this (409),
but as I've said before elsewhere, this is anything but a trivial thing
to do. It involves big changes in the FS implementation, and we can't
afford to do those ATM.


-- 
Brane Čibej   <br...@xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/


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