More FSFS performance comments

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

Hey everyone, it's me again complaining about FSFS performance issues.

I was really excited to hear about the improvements in the disk usage
and performance of FSFS in the 1.4 release.  So I got approval and
converted our 1.3.2 repo of ~2 GB / 60000+ revs over to 1.4.  I was
really hoping (but not expecting) for one of the 50% repo size
reductions that are possible , but it only shaved off 300 MB or so.
Oh well that was not to big of a deal as disk space is cheap.

I was really banking on the performance improvements (recap, FSFS: ~6
min checkout times, ~35 min hotcopy times and BDB: ~3 min checkout
times, ~7 min hotcopy times).  Alas, my checkout times increased to
just over ~8 minutes! Granted this was only a single test case (all I
had time for today) and there may have been some gzipping happening on
the server.

So in the end, I must use BDB.  I just hope that I do not have to many
admin issues!

Oh, I do have a question.  I did a dump on my 2GB repo with the
--deltas option and the resulting dump file was (uncompressed) just
under 400MB.  Why is the size blowing up so much in the repo since it
supposedly stores stuff as deltas also?  I was thinking it might have
something to do with having 10's of 1000s of small revs files taking
up more disk space than is necessary, but the BDB repo is only
slightly smaller (<100 MB).  What about the properties, specifically
the svn:keywords property that cvs2svn sets?  Could that account for
the size?  Maybe it is worth another 15 hour conversion to test it...

Thanks for everything and I really do like subversion a lot.

Troy Curtis

-- 
"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

Re: More FSFS performance comments

[Kevin Greiner <gr...@gmail.com>]

On 9/6/06, Troy Curtis Jr <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I was really banking on the performance improvements (recap, FSFS: ~6
> min checkout times, ~35 min hotcopy times and BDB: ~3 min checkout
> times, ~7 min hotcopy times).  Alas, my checkout times increased to
> just over ~8 minutes! Granted this was only a single test case (all I
> had time for today) and there may have been some gzipping happening on
> the server.


I'm curious to know if you timed the commit and update commands? In my
company, I bet most developers run a full checkout no more than once a month
but commit and update 1-10x per day. For the increased peace of mind that
comes with fsfs, I'm willing to live with twice as long checkout times. Most
of us work remotely so I think bandwidth is our bottleneck, not server I/O
or CPU.

As far as the lengthy hotcopy times, assuming the new copy is read-only,
have you considered using the new svnsync tool?