subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <>
Subject Re: an observation regarding FSFS performance on BTRFS
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:12:10 GMT
You haven't mentioned what version of svn you use.  As you say, there
has been work recently --- some of it is in 1.7, some of it is on
^/subversion/branches/performance, some of it is on
^/subversion/branches/revprop-packing, and some additional ideas
are in notes/fsfs-improvements.txt in trunk.

Ben Smith-Mannschott wrote on Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 15:44:20 +0200:
> I've made the observation that FSFS repositories perform better on
> EXT4 than BTRFS. This probably isn't ground-breaking, but I thought
> I'd share it.
> I've got two Linux machines:
> - colossus, using BTRFS spanned over two disks.
>   2.6.38-11-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 29 19:02:55 UTC 2011
>   x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> - oberon, using EXT4 on a 2-disk software RAID-1 set.
>   Linux oberon 2.6.32-33-generic #72-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 29 21:07:13 UTC 2011
>   x86_64 GNU/Linux
> I've noticed that writes to FSFS repositories are 5x faster under EXT4
> than BTRFS. When svnsyncing form the same svn:// source to an local
> repository (file://), oberon completes about 400 revisions in the time
> it takes colossus to grind through 80.
> The BTRFS machine is our build server. Performance with (1.6.x)
> working copies is quite acceptable, but I'm glad I'm not using it to
> host svn repositories.
> Looks like the BTRFS people have some work to do. Maybe current
> Kernels have already improved this picture. I know there has been
> recent work on reducing the cost of meta-data operations (e.g. file
> creation, ...) and that work is ongoing on defragmentation
> functionality because of poor performance on files that are modified
> in place heavily (e.g. sqlite).
> // ben

View raw message