On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Geoff Rowell <geoff.row...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Nick <nos...@codesniffer.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:00 -0500, Mark Phippard wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Neil Bird <n...@jibbyjobby.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> We have a graphics-oriented code-base that's auto-generated and has >5000 >>> source files in one directory. While I can check this out OK on Linux, >>> we're seeing an unusable slow-down on Windows XP (NTFS), both using >>> Tortoise >>> directly, and as a test on Linux with the Windows drive mapped over CIFS. >> >> I created a folder with 5001 files in it ... maybe that is not enough? >> I just used small simple text files as I was only checking for the >> general problem in managing the temp files and the WC metadata. >> >> Upon checkout (using 1.6.15 command line client) I did not notice any >> slowdown. Windows checked out via HTTP across internet in about 49 >> seconds as opposed to 33 from my Mac (which is a faster system). The >> main thing is checkout did not seem to slow down. >> >> I did a similar test, using 5100 files in a single directory. Each file >> contained only the content "file XXXX" where XXXX was the number of the file >> (so tiny files). My linux system took 17 seconds, while Windows took a bit >> less than 2 min (but Windows is virtualized while linux is on the >> hardware). I also did not notice a slow-down as the checkout proceeded. >> Both systems used 1.6.15 and accessed the repo via https. >> >> I did, however, notice that the time to *add* the files (done via svn add >> *.txt) seemed to progressively slow down. But this was only observed by >> watching the files in the console as they were being added (it was >> relatively easy to see the rate because the each file name had a linear >> number at the end). I don't have any timings to back this up, though I'll >> collect some if anyone's interested. >> > I don't know why, but I believe the key thing here is working with > *binary* files. > > I noticed the same problem with a massive (10K+) amount of audio > snippets in a single directory.
I was thinking that this was a case where the reading/parsing/writing of our large entries file was causing a slowdown and moving to SQLite was going to bring performance gains. Clearly that is not the case as trunk is much slower. If I get another batch of free time I will try it with a lot of small PNG's. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
