ssh ne...@svn-qavm.apache.org Use the ssh key you use for people.apache.org. (And please add it to svn in the designated location; see pmc/machines/notes/ for the URL.)
Daniel Neels Hofmeyr wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:38:49 +0100: > 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.
