> Le 28 déc. 2017 à 12:26, Olivier Mascia <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Dear, > > Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of let's > say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? > Or should a proper HTTP server be used as front end to SCGI mode of fossil? > > From some quick-n-dirty tests (yeah, on a Windows server, not the best of all > ideas but simply convenient right now), it looks like cloning a 2 GB > repository through http over 1 Gbps LAN is curiously slow and I wonder why. > Not that we'll clone every day of course, but it looks so slow that it > questions stability.
To give context to this situation, I'm now 45 minutes later and it still is not complete. fossil clone http://olivier@something:8081/repotest repotest-om.fossil password for olivier: ********* remember password (Y/n)? Y Round-trips: 138 Artifacts sent: 0 received: 82563 ... The computer running fossil server is doing "nothing", 1 or 2% cpu consumed, LAN mostly calm. The computer pulling the clone does the same. I'm not seeing significant disk IO on any of them. The LAN segment they're both on has a background noise of about 1 Mbps with short peaks of less than 50 Mbps while this is ongoing. It really looks as if either the fossil process running the clone OR the fossil process running the server is abnormally slow doing its work. I'll probably retry such a clone locally (over http but both processes on same machine, through localhost) to try to get an understanding of what's going on. I must admit it awfully looks like a pure networking issue, but I tested a file transfer minutes before rerunning this clone test and I peaked 940 Mbps on the wire easily. A Gremlin, there is. Who's got some water? -- Best Regards, Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Olivier Mascia
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
