On 30 June 2014 18:51, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> >> On 19 June 2014 14:21, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I've performed several FSFS performace tests using latest Subversion >> > from trunk@r1602928. >> > >> I've re-ran my FSFS performance tests with trunk@r1605444 using latest >> fsfs7 performance fixes including combining indexes to revision files. > > [..]
> Also, it seems that some of these tests are run from hot > caches - causing a lot of variation and making comparison > pointless. An extreme case: > > ptime 1.0 for Win32, Freeware - http://www.pc-tools.net/ > Copyright(C) 2002, Jem Berkes <jber...@pc-tools.net> > > === "svn log http://localhost/svn/ruby-fsfs6-unpacked >nul" === > > Execution time: 216.064 s > ... > Execution time: 13.268 s > ... > Execution time: 18.061 s > Yes, I use hot caches and already noted this in my report: "Every test was run 3 times and only two latest used" I don't see the reason to test on cold disk caches because I assume that caches in the real servers are somewhat hot. No matter how it's complex to compare the results on hot disk caches. For me, log addressing feature is definitely useless if it slower on hot disk caches. -- Ivan Zhakov
