Hyrum K Wright wrote: > 'svn merge' appears to hang when running a simple merge: > > [[[ > $ svnd merge ^/subversion/trunk/ > ^Csubversion/svn/util.c:913: (apr_err=4) > subversion/svn/merge-cmd.c:163: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:11856: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:11829: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:9295: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:9001: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:8762: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:8599: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:6388: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/log.c:607: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/util.c:819: (apr_err=4) > subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/util.c:786: (apr_err=4) > svn: E000004: Error running context: Interrupted system call > ]]] > > This is using a trunk client build at r1416744 on Mac OS X. I also > see the same problem using a Linux client, same vintage. It was > unresponsive for something on the order of 5 minutes before I finally > killed the process with the above output.
Hi Hyrum. I don't know if you're seeing a network/server problem or a client inefficiency or a bit of both. I have been thinking two things about the client merge code though: * It would be good to insert some feedback about what it's doing in the time before it starts making local changes, to give the user a more pleasant experience during a large merge. * I know there is room for optimization: at the moment, for example, I believe it calculates the youngest common ancestor of the two branches more than once (contacting the repository each time). I'll see if I can reproduce a "large" merge scenario where the start-up time is significant, and work out where the main bottleneck is. For your particular case, can you tell me what branch at what revision your merge target was? > I don't know enough about what's going on under the hood, but it > appears the serf is lost. None of my CPUs are pegged, though, so it > looks like it's just waiting on network? Hard to believe, as I've > got a 15/5 fiber connection. It could easily be the server (or the network at the server end) that's responding slowly. - Julian > Running it again, I start to get a response after 7 minutes. > Something strange going on here...
