1.7 includes performance optimizations by Stefan2, new cache modules, new cache users, etc.
branches/performance includes, among other things, a file handles cache for FSFS. The plan is to merge that for 1.8. branches/revprop-packing packs revprops into flat files (not to sqlite). A basic form currently works and the final form will be included in 1.8. Ben Smith-Mannschott wrote on Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 17:28:28 +0200: > I'm using 1.6.x. I wasn't aware that there'd been sufficient > server-side work in 1.7.x as to make this distinction important. > > // ben > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 16:12, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > You haven't mentioned what version of svn you use. As you say, there > > has been work recently --- some of it is in 1.7, some of it is on > > ^/subversion/branches/performance, some of it is on > > ^/subversion/branches/revprop-packing, and some additional ideas > > are in notes/fsfs-improvements.txt in trunk. > > > > Ben Smith-Mannschott wrote on Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 15:44:20 +0200: > >> I've made the observation that FSFS repositories perform better on > >> EXT4 than BTRFS. This probably isn't ground-breaking, but I thought > >> I'd share it. > >> > >> I've got two Linux machines: > >> > >> - colossus, using BTRFS spanned over two disks. > >> 2.6.38-11-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 29 19:02:55 UTC 2011 > >> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > >> > >> - oberon, using EXT4 on a 2-disk software RAID-1 set. > >> Linux oberon 2.6.32-33-generic #72-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 29 21:07:13 UTC > >> 2011 > >> x86_64 GNU/Linux > >> > >> I've noticed that writes to FSFS repositories are 5x faster under EXT4 > >> than BTRFS. When svnsyncing form the same svn:// source to an local > >> repository (file://), oberon completes about 400 revisions in the time > >> it takes colossus to grind through 80. > >> > >> The BTRFS machine is our build server. Performance with (1.6.x) > >> working copies is quite acceptable, but I'm glad I'm not using it to > >> host svn repositories. > >> > >> Looks like the BTRFS people have some work to do. Maybe current > >> Kernels have already improved this picture. I know there has been > >> recent work on reducing the cost of meta-data operations (e.g. file > >> creation, ...) and that work is ongoing on defragmentation > >> functionality because of poor performance on files that are modified > >> in place heavily (e.g. sqlite). > >> > >> // ben > >
