On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 15:02 +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On 08.07.2011 01:56, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > FYI from users@
> >
> > - Forwarded message from Tony Butt -
> > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:20:27 +1000
> >> We are running subversion 1.6.17 on a vmware hosted server. We recently
> >>
I found this an interesting read, thanks.
(even though we already talked about it in Berlin)
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 15:02:25 +0200:
> Hope that lengthy explanation helps!
>
> -- Stefan^2.
On 08.07.2011 01:56, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
FYI from users@
- Forwarded message from Tony Butt -
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:20:27 +1000
We are running subversion 1.6.17 on a vmware hosted server. We recently
reconfigured the server to give 4 virtual CPUs (up from 1), and a
significant amou
Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:13:05 +0200:
> Doing pre-release testing is a great service to the community.
> For us, it is a lot easier to handle problems before the release,
> and we can respond to problem reports a lot quicker.
>
> After release we are bound by compatibility
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:56:07PM +1000, Tony Butt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 03:58 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Tony Butt wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:41:43 +1000:
> > > Probably don't want to do that.
> > > We are in a commercial environment, with some 20 developers relying on
> > > s
Tony Butt wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 13:56:07 +1000:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 03:58 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Tony Butt wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:41:43 +1000:
> > > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 02:59 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > This doesn't address memcached directly, but there has
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 17:31 -0700, Geoff Hoffman wrote:
Tony -
Strange results to be sure. You probably thought of all this, but...
Did you check Memcached is working correctly without Subversion?
Did you check the results of checking out or updating the 2
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 03:58 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Tony Butt wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:41:43 +1000:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 02:59 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > This doesn't address memcached directly, but there has been a /lot/ of
> > > work on server-side optimization and cachi
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 17:31 -0700, Geoff Hoffman wrote:
Tony -
Strange results to be sure. You probably thought of all this, but...
Did you check Memcached is working correctly without Subversion?
It seems to be - reviewboard works OK, and running memcache
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 02:59 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> This doesn't address memcached directly, but there has been a /lot/ of
> work on server-side optimization and caching in 1.7 (also for
> non-memcached-backed caches).
>
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.7#server-performanc
Tony Butt wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:41:43 +1000:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 02:59 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > This doesn't address memcached directly, but there has been a /lot/ of
> > work on server-side optimization and caching in 1.7 (also for
> > non-memcached-backed caches).
> >
> > h
Tony -
Strange results to be sure. You probably thought of all this, but...
Did you check Memcached is working correctly without Subversion?
Did you check the results of checking out or updating the 2nd or 3rd time?
In other words, it may take longer the first time because every object in
the repo
This doesn't address memcached directly, but there has been a /lot/ of
work on server-side optimization and caching in 1.7 (also for
non-memcached-backed caches).
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.7#server-performance-tuning
You might want to take 1.7.0-alpha3 for a spin...
Tony
We are running subversion 1.6.17 on a vmware hosted server. We recently
reconfigured the server to give 4 virtual CPUs (up from 1), and a
significant amount of memory.
In order to spruce up our performance a little, I looked into the use of
memcached with subversion again, found the correct confi
14 matches
Mail list logo
