Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
>> cvsnt is doing more work - cvs does not have access control, What access control are we talking about? >> or directory/file rename mapping, What is that? Is this to do with handling renames? >> or file-level locking, Where does file-level locking come in? >> I get a peak of about 15% for a full update - As I mentioned, we are getting a much higher peak than that - 75%. Thats on a single-cpu PIII Xeon.... >> as long as there's unused >> CPU that's fine... it's there to be used. :-) Thats fine for one user.... but when you want 200+ developers using the same server... the cpu is there not to be used, but to be shared... :-) Our continuous integration servers also count as quite a large number of normal users - given the check frequency >> cvslockd barely registers >> more than 2-3% most of the time. True. We dont see cvslockd show up at all. Its cvs that eats all the cpu... >> Direct comparison isn't easy... I couldn't run the old cvs on any of my >> repositories because it simply couldn't handle them. It might be an idea to get a regular cvs repo that you can do perf comparison on. I get the feeling that perf has incrementally deteriorated over time (and hence not been noticed by regular upgraders). We certainly noticed it - but that is because we skipped over 3 years of upgrades. >> slightly ahead on operations involving large files - because it >> does more in memory - >> and behind with many small files, as it does a lot >> more work per file. Hmm, java and c# development tends towards many many small files... so that doesnt count in our favour. Average medium project contains 2000+ files... >> 2.0.58d is faster than the old 2.0.51d, btw. and 2.0.6x is faster still >> in some cases (maybe slower in others). But sadly its *significantly* slower than regular cvs and older versions of cvsnt. When we are talking about 3-4 minute updates.... it becomes a little unusable.. -Nick Internet tmh at nodomain.org@cvsnt.org - 27/11/2004 21:20 Sent by: cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org To: cvsnt cc: Subject: [cvsnt] Re: cvsnt Vs cvs : Performance! nick.minutello at uk.bnpparibas.com wrote: > Checkout pef was about the same - 2.5 mins for a large module. cvs hardly > showed up on top - peaking at 6or 7% cpu... cvsnt hit around 20%. > However, update perf was *wildly* different. > cvs took 6 sec, cvsnt took 15 sec. However on the cpu stakes, cvs used > about 4-8% whereas cvsnt hit 75% at some point - and a lot of time at 50%!! cvsnt is doing more work - cvs does not have access control, or directory/file rename mapping, or file-level locking, for example, so you'd expect some differences... there's a *lot* of work going on now. I get a peak of about 15% for a full update - as long as there's unused CPU that's fine... it's there to be used. cvslockd barely registers more than 2-3% most of the time. Direct comparison isn't easy... I couldn't run the old cvs on any of my repositories because it simply couldn't handle them. Basing it around remote access (sourceforge vs cvs.cvsnt.org, to a US client) cvsnt comes out just slightly ahead on operations involving large files - because it does more in memory - and behind with many small files, as it does a lot more work per file. 2.0.58d is faster than the old 2.0.51d, btw. and 2.0.6x is faster still in some cases (maybe slower in others). Tony _______________________________________________ cvsnt mailing list cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt https://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/en.asp#downcvs This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely for the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in accord with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee the integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall (will) not therefore be liable for the message if modified. ********************************************************************************************** BNP Paribas Private Bank London Branch is authorised by CECEI & AMF and is regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of its investment business in the United Kingdom. BNP Paribas Securities Services London Branch is authorised by CECEI & AMF and is regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of its investment business in the United Kingdom. BNP Paribas Fund Services UK Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.