organization

[Bruce A. Mah]

If memory serves me right, Craig Boston wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:25:19PM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote:

> > This of course doesn't include ports/ or doc/, so it doesn't really
> > answer the scalability question.
> 
> Most of what I ran into was just in src/.  I hesitate to say anything
> since it's been a long time and my memory is vague.  ISTR a few simple
> operations on a file at the top level were causing the entire tree to be
> traversed.  Unfortunately I don't remember exactly -- maybe it's time to
> test it again...

I know what you mean...I was looking through my notes for more details
about our repository conversion and they were a little lacking.  :-p

> One issue I do remember had to more do with apache and davsvn rather
> than subversion itself.  Attempting to cancel a long running operation
> (say an accidental svn diff of the whole tree) would kill the frontend
> but leave the backend churning away on the server, which would bog down
> further requests (locking?), causing them to hang for a while, build up
> requests, and make the situation worse.

Sounds like a bad situation there.  On our server we use svn+ssh, except
for a few Windows clients that use https.  (BTW our server is running
4-STABLE and it's wonderful.)

> I use subversion exclusively for my personal projects but none are big
> enough that I've run into that problem again.  It may well have been
> fixed by now -- the version number has been creeping up while I wasn't
> looking :)

Heh.  :-)  1.1.3 is current now, but one can find mentions of a 1.1.4
bugfix release being planned, as well as the (farther out) 1.2 release
with locking.

> > This is dependent (among other things) on the nature of the files in
> > the repository and which repository back-end is used.  I did a
> > conversion at ${REALJOB} in December where I converted 1.3GB of CVS
> > repository to about 1.5GB in Subversion.  For the curious, the
> > back-end was FSFS, and an earlier test conversion using the BDB
> > back-end took about 2.1GB.  I know this is smaller than the FreeBSD
> > repository.
> 
> Ah, I haven't played with FSFS yet.  All my repositories are BDB that
> have been upgraded and migrated from version 0.something.

While BDB worked well for us in testing, FSFS gave us the ability to do
incremental backups of the repository, which was important for getting
buy-in from my IT support group.  I was a little nervous at using new
code for the backend but it's had nary a hiccup.  (Knock on wood.)

As you probably know, a number of people have reported lockups with the
BDB backend...it turns out to be more problems with the way that
Subversion uses BDB, as well as people just not setting it up correctly.

Bruce.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20050329/89d6655d/attachment.bin