svn - but smaller?
markiyan.kushnir at gmail.com
Sun Mar 31 09:53:02 UTC 2013
On 25.03.2013 02:55, John Mehr wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:55:19 +0200
> Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello John,
>> Tested svnup for a while, and I can say it does its job well, and
>> works basically as I would expect, so thanks for your initiative.
>> Although it appears to be quite resource greedy. Most of the time it
>> showed something like:
>> PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU
>> 22270 mkushnir 1 102 0 44944K 31804K CPU0 1 6:22 97.56%
>> I looked at the source code, and found that it uses svn commands that
>> are known as the "main command set". The program is implemented around
>> get-dir and get-file. I think there is significant room for resource
>> and performance improvement.
>> Have you considered an approach to use what svn folks call the editor
>> command set? I mean acting as a trivial svn client: we might ask the
>> server to drive our checking out or updating. The server will be
>> telling us only diffs. Checking out a full tree would be just another
>> diff, although bigger than usually. We would also benefit from
>> compression on the wire.
>> Another advantage would be to always have consistent repo more-or-less
>> guaranteed by the svn server.
>> I've done some proof of concept recently, and the results look
>> encouraging to me. For example, a do-nothing update really does
>> nothing. A two-or-three revisions update takes a couple of seconds.
>> And a full checkout of the base/stable/9 takes ~7m30s at 530kB/s to me.
> The results I was getting from testing out the svn protocol's editor
> command set were unpleasant enough to put it into the "come back to this
> later" category while I worked on implementing the http/https side. The
> good news it that the http side is *much* easier to work with in this
> respect and getting a report with filenames and MD5/SHA-1 signatures for
> all of the files in the repository can be obtained all at once. I
> should have a new and improved version ready to go this weekend or early
> next week at the latest.
Yes, I agree that svn editor needs quite a bit of effort. I was actually
encouraged to break this challenge, and made my own svnup based on
svndiff. If you are interested in details, you may find it on github.com
under mkushnir/mrksvnup. It's a complete app, although you may use or
re-use (parts of) it if you want.
I also tested your svnup more and found that it doesn't handle symbolic
links well. (May be you have already been aware of it.)
I would suggest to test svnup against official svn client. Here is
briefly what I'm doing to test my own svnup:
# svn co -r NNNNNN svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/head head.svn
# svnup -u svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/head -r NNNNNN -l head.svnup
# diff -r head.svnup/ head.svn | egrep -v 'FreeBSD|\-\-\-|^diff
The diff output must be clean.
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-stable