Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-02 Thread Neels J Hofmeyr
On 11/02/2011 03:46 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr > wrote: > > > It seems to show an improvement on 'svn delete' for 1.7.0. > > > Yep, I noticed that. FWIW, the benchmarks that I wrote also show delete > being faster wi

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-02 Thread Mark Phippard
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote: > > It seems to show an improvement on 'svn delete' for 1.7.0. > Yep, I noticed that. FWIW, the benchmarks that I wrote also show delete being faster with 1.7.x: https://ctf.open.collab.net/sf/projects/csvn/ In my case, delete is deletin

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-02 Thread Neels J Hofmeyr
On 11/01/2011 07:56 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stefan Sperling > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +, Philip Martin wrote: > > I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children > > notification used by 1

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Perhaps xpost this to dev@ at some point :) Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 18:44:29 +: > Stefan Sperling writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +, Philip Martin wrote: > >> I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children > >> notification used by 1.6.

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
k the culprit is the fundamental svn rm command is too slow. -Original Message- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:30 PM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1); users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Mark Phippard
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +, Philip Martin wrote: > > I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children > > notification used by 1.6. I wonder if that notification order is > > important? > > See r1196191. > It sho

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Sperling writes: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +, Philip Martin wrote: >> I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children >> notification used by 1.6. I wonder if that notification order is >> important? > > See r1196191. > It should preserve the 1.6.x order (via

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +, Philip Martin wrote: > I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children > notification used by 1.6. I wonder if that notification order is > important? See r1196191. It should preserve the 1.6.x order (via svn_path_compare_paths()). > A patc

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:00:57PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:31:35AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > > It's just one directory that has 49 files in it. > > Good. Please try this patch in addition to the other one. > It makes 'svn rm dir/*' with 49 files

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Sperling writes: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:31:35AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > Note that I am not going to commit this as is. > It just tests whether the overhead of sorting paths in sqlite matters > much on NFS. > > Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql > =

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:31:35AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > It's just one directory that has 49 files in it. Good. Please try this patch in addition to the other one. It makes 'svn rm dir/*' with 49 files go down from about 4.20 seconds to about 1.50 seconds for me (local disk).

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
mance over nfs. From: Tony Sweeney [mailto:tswee...@omnifone.com Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:32 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1); markp...@gmail.com Cc: s...@elego.de; users@subversion.apache.org Subject: RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x _

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Tony Sweeney
From: michael_rytt...@agilent.com [mailto:michael_rytt...@agilent.com] Sent: 01 November 2011 17:19 To: markp...@gmail.com Cc: s...@elego.de; users@subversion.apache.org Subject: RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x Perhaps I wasn&#x

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
It's just one directory that has 49 files in it. -Original Message- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:22 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling probl

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > What effect does the env var have on 'svn rm dir/*'? Actually, looking closer at the code made me realise that 'svn rm' never sleeps for timestamps. So the envvar should have no effect. > How many files and directories are you act

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:10:44AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > LOL! I love the env variable. > > Here is some similar data for a local working copy. These are all run with > the env variable set. Again, svn rm is significantly slower than all other > operations. > > svn rm

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Mark Phippard
** > > *From:* Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:18 AM > *To:* RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) > *Cc:* s...@elego.de; users@subversion.apache.org > > *Subject:* Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x &

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
e.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM, mailto:michael_rytt...@agilent.com>> wrote: LOL! I love the env variable. Here is some similar data for a local working copy. These are all run with the env variable set. Again, sv

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Mark Phippard
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM, wrote: > LOL! I love the env variable. > > Here is some similar data for a local working copy. These are all run > with the env variable set. Again, svn rm is significantly slower than all > other operations. > > svn rm 0.35s > svn st 0.105s > svn blame 0

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
ge- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:00 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:38:07AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agile

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
0.036s svn info 0.014s -Original Message- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:00 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Tue, Nov 01, 201

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:38:07AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > Not much of an improvement. "svn rm dir/*" now takes 2m6s vs 7s for "svn rm > dir". Before the patch, we had: "svn rm dir/*" 6m15s 1.7.1 "svn rm dir"8.5s 1.7.1 "svn rm dir/*"1.14s

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
ginal Message- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 8:35 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:45:59AM -0600, michael_ry

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:45:59AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > I'm always willing to try patches. Great! Please give this patch a spin: svn diff -c 1196018 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/1.7.x-r1195873

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread michael_rytting
I'm always willing to try patches. -Original Message- From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:49 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Mo

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-11-01 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:12:04AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > I did an additional benchmark doing "svn rm dir/*" on a local > directory instead of an nfs directory. It runs in 10.4s. Is going > from 10.4s to 6m15s acceptable when using a working copy on nfs vs > local? I am fine

RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-10-31 Thread michael_rytting
t: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 09:09:21AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > I am starting to see some very bad performance with "svn rm" compared to the > 1.6.x line of subversion. I have a directory that is full of file

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

2011-10-31 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 09:09:21AM -0600, michael_rytt...@agilent.com wrote: > I am starting to see some very bad performance with "svn rm" compared to the > 1.6.x line of subversion. I have a directory that is full of files. If I go > into the directory and run "svn rm *", it is significantly