On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 20:27 +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > Also instead of nebulous handwaving about "performance is bad", it > > would be nice to have actually datasets and actual numbers. We have a > > VM at the ASF which could be used for hosting a set of benchmarking > > data; we just need somebody to put together the data and write the > > scripts which run the benchmarks. > > I'll ask Neels about running his set of performance tests on the VM > (see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-09/0526.shtml).
Wow, looking back at my own results, it seems so far away. Man, it's slowly getting half a year since I first ran the benchmark. If you have instructions for me to set up my humble tests on some machine, I might be tempted to cook up some digest reporting on top of it. The test script itself might benefit from a review, though. If we run it on some idling box somewhere, we could simply increase the extent of the test from 4x4 dir levels to a few more (keeping an eye on exponential growth so it takes less than a day to run...). I'm not sure if it's necessary to even care about other runs than ra_local, since we're testing libsvn_wc performance, right? ra_local should be where libsvn_wc perf loss is the most visible. I still have that article about svn 1.7 waiting unreleased and growing a beard. I don't want to print an article that has to say "svn 1.7 grew slower than 1.6", so I'd want 1.7 to be same speed as 1.6 for a release. We can already brag about massive memory usage improvement with deep WCs. If we can just skip having to say "BUT it's slower in many common cases", that'd be great. > > I know he's not following dev@ closely ATM, but maybe he'll see this one > anyway cause his name is in it -- but I can more easily catch his attention > by waving across the yard from my kitchen window :) (monospace) [[[ | * | | . | ______ | | | ~| | | | ~ | o/ ______ | | |____| /| _o/ | ~ | | | / \ /_\ (<-- ascii daughter) \o | ~ | | | |\ |____| | | / \ | | | ]]] :) And all the neighbors left bewildered. ~Neels