On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:04:20PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, I believe so. That was also the thread on users@ that made me
>> >> add this scenario into these bench
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 05:30:53PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> > I've run these tests on OpenBSD 4.9 (amd64) and got the following results:
>
> Thanks. I added your results to the wiki
>
> https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/wiki/do/view
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:04:20PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I believe so. That was also the thread on users@ that made me
> >> add this scenario into these benchmarks.
> >
> > Mark, can you run the tests with this branch?
>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> Yes, I believe so. That was also the thread on users@ that made me
>> add this scenario into these benchmarks.
>
> Mark, can you run the tests with this branch?
> ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-issue3719
> Maybe it helps.
I am not the one
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:51:52PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>
> >> So while 1.7 has made nice improvements over 1.6, there is still a
> >> huge regression. I would blame it on tree conflicts, but would this
> >> show up in a checkout
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>> So while 1.7 has made nice improvements over 1.6, there is still a
>> huge regression. I would blame it on tree conflicts, but would this
>> show up in a checkout (maybe because it shares code with update)?
>> Might be something for someo
Mark Phippard writes:
> A user supplied me with results of running the benchmarks with 1.5,
> 1.6 and 1.7 on Windows. I have updated the wiki with those results.
>
> There was one area of the tests that I thought were interesting,
> because there is a massive regression in 1.6. The tests are wi
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> So while 1.7 has made nice improvements over 1.6, there is still a
> huge regression. I would blame it on tree conflicts, but would this
> show up in a checkout (maybe because it shares code with update)?
> Might be something for someone t
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:13 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Well, I just made switch slower yesterday, and knowingly so. At least, I
> made it do some extra up-front work to verify that the switch isn't
> potentially unwanted. My changes won't affect the time spent doing the
> actual work of t
On 03/31/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> A user supplied me with results of running the benchmarks with 1.5,
> 1.6 and 1.7 on Windows. I have updated the wiki with those results.
>
> There was one area of the tests that I thought were interesting,
> because there is a massive regression in
I thought I did. Sorry will do so now.
You can also click button and request to join the project and edit the
wiki yourself (applies to anyone).
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Thanks! All results have been ad
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Thanks! All results have been added to the wiki.
Hi Mark,
Can you add my WinXP results as well? (sent 21 hours ago, according to
gmail :-)).
Or do you have enough benchmark data from Windowses for now (I think
they are all 64 bit)?
Cheer
Thanks! All results have been added to the wiki.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:36 AM, vijay wrote:
> On Sunday 27 March 2011 12:21 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>> I would love to see someone do some tests with the WC on local disk vs
>> network mount (1.6 and 1.7). I tried to do it using some vir
On Sunday 27 March 2011 12:21 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
I would love to see someone do some tests with the WC on local disk vs
network mount (1.6 and 1.7). I tried to do it using some virtual
machines I have access to at CollabNet. The problem is that the
connection of these boxes to the NetApp
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I think your benchmarks are going to be more helpful for us to locate
> hotspots and get them fixed. Mark's seem more high-level, for
> policy-making rather than coding.
>From what I can see both are just driving the command line. Main
differ
On 29/03/11 01:33, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:51, John Beranek wrote:
>> On 28/03/2011 23:45, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:42, John Beranek wrote:
On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a framework for wr
Hi,
I have run these tests on ubuntu 10.10 with svn 1.6.12 and svn
1.7.0-dev(r1086476).
Repository access: file://
Attached the results.
Thanks & Regards,
Vijayaguru
On Friday 25 March 2011 11:03 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> > I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
> > performance. I have something good enough to share:
> >
> > https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/projects/csvn
> >
> >
Forgot to add: this was with the repository via svnserve on localhost.
Johan
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Here is another data point, for my old (t)rusty Windows XP (32-bit)
> this time, on a system with a pretty slow hard disk (5.4k rpm), 1.83
> GHz In
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:51, John Beranek wrote:
> On 28/03/2011 23:45, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:42, John Beranek wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
Hi,
I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
performance. I ha
On 28/03/2011 23:45, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:42, John Beranek wrote:
>> On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
>>> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>>
>> May I make an obser
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:42, John Beranek wrote:
> On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
>> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>
> May I make an observation about these benchmarks...?
>
> When I pro
On 28/03/2011 23:00, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, John Beranek wrote:
>> On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
>>> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>>
>> May I make an
Hi Mark,
Here is another data point, for my old (t)rusty Windows XP (32-bit)
this time, on a system with a pretty slow hard disk (5.4k rpm), 1.83
GHz Intel T2400 cpu, 3 GB RAM.
I must say the results look very good for 1.7 (r1086021) compared to
1.6.16 on this system. Especially for the "Folder t
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, John Beranek wrote:
> On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
>> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>
> May I make an observation about these benchmarks...?
>
> When I p
On 25/03/2011 17:33, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
> performance. I have something good enough to share:
May I make an observation about these benchmarks...?
When I provided some benchmarks that included 'checkout' tests I was
spec
Mark Phippard wrote on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 13:08:05 -0400:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Arwin Arni wrote:
>
> > I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 on an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.26GHz with 2GiB of RAM.
> >
> > Here are the benchmark results for svn 1.6.6 (provided by canonical for my
> > OS) and svn t
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> Very cool to see something which will hopefully give us some
> quantitative measure of performance.
>
> I've seen people submit reports based on particular revisions. Would
> it be possible to run the same suite of tools across a number of
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>
> https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/projects/csvn
>
> It is pretty easy to add new tests if you have ideas on more t
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Arwin Arni wrote:
> I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 on an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.26GHz with 2GiB of RAM.
>
> Here are the benchmark results for svn 1.6.6 (provided by canonical for my
> OS) and svn trunk (r1086245).
>
> Trunk is taking nearly twice as long as 1.6.6... Am
Hi Mark,
I'm running Ubuntu 10.04 on an Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.26GHz with 2GiB of RAM.
Here are the benchmark results for svn 1.6.6 (provided by canonical for
my OS) and svn trunk (r1086245).
Trunk is taking nearly twice as long as 1.6.6... Am I doing something
wrong... is it because of enabl
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I've run these tests on OpenBSD 4.9 (amd64) and got the following results:
Thanks. I added your results to the wiki
https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.csvn/wiki/HomePage
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.b
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:33:25PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>
> https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/projects/csvn
>
> It is pretty easy to add new tests if you have ideas
Mark Phippard writes:
> * Delete and move are slower than I would have expected.
These are slow because delete has no recursive optimisation.
Non-recursive delete of a node with all children already deleted is the
most basic operation, and recursive delete can be implemented in terms
of this ope
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I have been working on a framework for writing tests to record
> performance. I have something good enough to share:
>
> https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/projects/csvn
>
> It is pretty easy to add new tests if you have ideas on more tests you
35 matches
Mail list logo
