On 07/07/2014 11:23 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 07.07.2014 17:07, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> On 07/07/2014 10:58 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> My technical opinion that FSFS7/log addressing is slower by design, >>> because it's doing more (read index, then read data instead of just >>> read data) and only caching makes them comparable on performance to >>> FSFS6 repositories. >> I'm coming into this kinda late and after two weeks of vacation, so >> please forgive me if I misunderstand the above, but is it true that >> FSFS7 requires some kind of non-trivial caching just to match FSFS6's >> performance? > > Yup.
May I then presume that for folks who have many repositories being hosted from a single server, FSFS7 will necessarily bring either a CPU performance hit (insufficient cache) or a RAM requirement/consumption hit (sufficient, ginormous cache)? Or is the cache configuration perhaps per-server rather than per-repository? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
