Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:09:19 +0300 From: Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <51670A5F.9000901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5166F605.4080602@gmail.com> References: <fa.HC5qzO0iN/yjyYjD7VV5PmQvhvc@ifi.uio.no> <fa.MRv3xfHTaOGpLpfASzsQON4/eTc@ifi.uio.no> <fa.wyARL8ZqTcETVtc9IbN/jffnuPE@ifi.uio.no> <fa.Tzd7N2eV1WeXmNrho7bucg2/0t8@ifi.uio.no> <fa.0htAnieJG4n/5yzdAG/An/SC7VE@ifi.uio.no> <fa.jFksxKaJZTqO9sKuozxeK5lHIlU@ifi.uio.no> <88b872cf-7795-4d69-91c7-6c3107299b33@googlegroups.com> <20130411225319.M56386@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <5166F605.4080602@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11.04.2013 20:42, Markiyan Kushnir wrote: > I agree with Ian, there is no need to statically link to base libraries. > > While not going into details of the patch, I can confirm no issues, > except of known ones, of course: ports/177777, ports/177408. > > Another thing that might be worth of attention, the patched version has > been again back to slower checkout time: > > real 91m38.824s > user 0m26.216s > sys 0m13.858s > > at 4 Mbit/s link, while the original 0.56 takes ~55min given the same > load/network conditions. > So my fresh measurements of the original 0.56 version at 4Mbit/s has shown: real 27m45.944s user 3m43.608s sys 22m35.469s while drawing about 97% of CPU time and 30..50 MB RSS memeory: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9Q-zpUXxqCnM1lHVWhNRWF6aUk/edit?usp=sharing Here is how the patched version was doing in roughly equivalent conditions: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9Q-zpUXxqCndUhTT2tySV8wdU0/edit?usp=sharing -- Markiyan. > -- > Markiyan > > On 11.04.2013 16:03, Ian Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, mrboco@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:57:12 AM UTC+6, Markiyan Kushnir wrote: >> > > 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 COMMAND >> > > 22270 mkushnir 1 102 0 44944K 31804K CPU0 1 6:22 >> 97.56% a.out >> > >> > It's because of typo in the send_command() procedure. >> > >> > I've placed the patched svnup.c (0.56), the diff and two statically >> > linked binaries on http://ftp.ufanet.ru/pub/boco/freebsd/svnup/ >> > >> > No more CPU eating and/or strange lockups (so far). Tested both >> > against local and remote repository. >> >> I'm sorry, but even ignoring all of your whitespace and style(9) >> differences, your patch appears to go well beyond correcting a typo, >> which I can't spot anyway, though I'm sure John will know what it is. >> >> Care to explain a little more? >> >> Also, what advantage, in this particular case, is there in statically >> linking? Here it turns a 21.5K i386 binary into one of 575K. If this >> makes it into base, as I hope it may, that seems a little excessive? >> >> cheers, Ian >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51670A5F.9000901>