Which kernel version you running? On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Paul Hammant <p...@hammant.org> wrote: > Markus - you may be right on hopes for perf improvements. > > I'm reevaluating what I said a couple of days ago in this thread. The best > case PUT times for that 15GB random resource at 7 mins, but about 1/5 of > them are at 15 mins. I'm going to try to undo the TMPDIR change and see if > it goes back to 15 mins consistently > > The drive is mounted as 'async' in Linux. Is that what you meant by no-sync > ? Sync kills USB drive performance by 90% on Linux in my experience. > > The 4TB drive's Svn server size is now up at 3TB, if anyone is interested. > > - Paul > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Markus Schaber <m.scha...@codesys.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, Paul, >> >> >> >> If at all, I’d expect a speed boost if the temp folder is on a fast drive >> (e. G. SSD or RAM Disk) separate from the backend storage, so storage and >> temp file I/O won’t compete for I/O. (Size of RAM useable for OS caches also >> makes a difference, and mount options like “no-sync” which can be acceptable >> for temp folders – but never for backend storage, of course). >> >> >> >> And I also guess the speed difference is more siginificant if there are >> several concurrent accesses, so the I/O operations overlap. A single SVN >> backend process is pretty much “serialized” in what it does, no concurrent / >> async I/O yet. >> >>
-- Jacek Materna CTO Assembla +1 210 410 7661 +48 578 296 708
