> Oh, and it just occurred to me: I assume your https test is with the
> neon http library (the default up until now). Can you also try those
> tests with the serf library (if that's compiled into your client)? To
> do that, adding the following option to your command line should work:
>
> --co
>>> Sorry for mistake. Should be:
>>> up svn:// ~ 0m 19sec
>>> up https:// ~ 0m 35 sec
>>> up svn vs https perf, % ~ > 23%
>>
>> Okay, got it.
Sory for my maths :)
(35-19)=16 | 16*100/19=84% svn is more quicker
up svn vs https perf, % ~ > 84%
>
> Oh, and it just occurred to me: I assume your https
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:56 PM, slaventii wrote:
>> >>> Huh? How do you arrive at 23 %? According to these numbers, https is
>> >>> almost twice as fast here.
>> >>>
>>
> Huh? How do you arrive at 23 %? According to these numbers, https is
> almost twice as fast here.
>
Sorry for mistake. Should be:
up svn:// ~ 0m 19sec
up https:// ~ 0m 35 sec
up svn vs https perf, % ~ > 23%
> That could very well be the reason here why your tests with 1.7 server
> are slower. I
te:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM, slaventii wrote:
>> Want to share some of my tests results:
>> /trunk - 1.80 GB (1,941,844,940 bytes) - 148,114 Files; 52,519 Folders
>>
>> Old Har
Forgot to say about network - it's LAN 100 Mbit/s.
It is very strange first test
co https:// 40m 17 sec !!!
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM, slaventii wrote:
>> Want to share some of my tests results:
>> /trunk - 1.
ient :)
Started new set of tests with "c:\Program
Files\TortoiseSVN\bin\svn.exe" that is
svn, version 1.7.5 (r1336830) compiled May 15 2012, 12:29:08
Thank you for observation.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM, slaventii wro
> 17:10:10.488834 IP 192.168.1.2.59751 > 192.168.1.1.3690:
>> > Flags [P.], seq 145:184, ack 166, win 65115, length 39
>> > E..O.b@"..@...@ .g.j~...P..[( PLAIN (
>> > 21:AHVzZXIAcGFzc3dvcmQ=
>> >
>
>Ah, ok, yes, I did say we use https. The server is configured to
redirect all http traffic >to https (using mod_ssl) and authentication then
happens in that encrypted >environment (or am I being naïve here?)
As I wrote we already have Apache with HTTPS. All is good except speed.
>What is very s
>No (sorry), we use https via apache and mod_ldap to authenticate against
AD. I am >interested to know why you think that is not secure enough
(perhaps you have *nix >clients storing plain text passwords?)
Because it works only with PLAIN auth:
tcpdump -ni eth0 -A src host 192.168.1.2 and tcp ds
> 17:10:10.488834 IP 192.168.1.2.59751 > 192.168.1.1.3690:
> > > Flags [P.], seq 145:184, ack 166, win 65115, length 39
> > > E..O.b@"..@...@ .g.j~...P..[( PLAIN (
> > > 21:AHVzZXIAcGFzc3dvcmQ=
> > >
> &
11 matches
Mail list logo
