On 19 June 2014 17:06, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Turn out that the ruby repo is something special > in that it has very deep histories of relatively few, > very small files combined with one huge changelog > file (the latter taking up ~75% of the repo). See > below for details. > > Also, please note that your exports contained >>500000 files. Using 16MB of cache with that > project size *may* not be an adequate setup. > Upping that to insane 256MB (roughly what 1.6 > would use anyway), gives much better numbers. > However, there is hardly a difference between > f6 and f7 in these runs. > > Here my measurements with svn: under Linux: > There is still misleading information about real fsfs7 performance: 1. You're comparing fsfs7 packed vs fsfs6 packed and do not provide data for fsfs6/fsfs7 unpacked. I already demonstrated you that fsfs6 unpacked (default) is dramatically faster with defaults options.
2. You're still testing svn:// protocol only. And you even don't bother to test http:// protocol, while I demonstrated you 10 times performance degradation on the same test data. Also I don't see anything special with repositories with deep histories: that's pretty typical for source code. -- Ivan Zhakov CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
