Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:27:17 -0600 From: "John Mehr" <jcm@visi.com> To: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <web-11636850@mailback4.g2host.com> In-Reply-To: <20130130124752.GB10308@snail.casa> References: <20130123144050.GG51786@e-Gitt.NET> <20130125092723.GC79995@e-Gitt.NET> <web-11528524@mailback4.g2host.com> <1359320641-6493504.60501067.fr0RL3aYw027137@rs149.luxsci.com> <web-10418670@mailback3.g2host.com> <1359478142-8003652.41205547.fr0TGmWxX027565@rs149.luxsci.com> <20130130124752.GB10308@snail.casa>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:47:52 +0100
Arrigo Marchiori <ardovm@yahoo.it> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:48:31AM -0500, Isaac (.ike)
> I tried the attached script to download
> http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/ In 27 minutes it
>downloaded 67
> megabytes, corresponding to 42 KByte/sec, through an
>ADSL link capable
> of roughly 400 KByte/sec. Then I stopped it.
>
> IMHO this should demonstrate that the problem is not
>only having a
> SVN workalike, but a fast and efficient one.
> --
> rigo
>
> http://rigo.altervista.org
Hello all,
I've got a "working" solution now. I put working in quotes because I'm
seeing similar dismal performance stats to your script (I also have ~
400 KB/s DSL connection). The problem appears to be with the overhead
of sending and receiving all of the ~ 100 byte requests to both get the
MD5 signatures and to get the files themselves (large files transfer
*very* quickly and I'm not using poll() to check if there's data to be
read on the socket).
I've got two bugs left to squash and I'll post the source code for
everyone to review.
I know you can issue more that one command at a time and my next hurdle
will be working on speeding things up by combining requests for all
files in each folder instead of issuing one request for each file.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?web-11636850>