Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: CVSup server loads (was: Stable broken) Message-ID: <200007202101.OAA17106@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <3977334E.AE1F303F@urx.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007200001080.84615-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <3976A60C.BE9DE986@urx.com> <20000720095625.A91025@hdroam.ssd.loral.com> <3977334E.AE1F303F@urx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <3977334E.AE1F303F@urx.com>, Kent Stewart <kstewart@urx.com> wrote: > That is where I finally got my cvsup update from. I thought cvsup8 > was much slower than cvsup7 and then I found later that it wasn't > very fast on either site. If you think this is bad then you weren't around in the days when we used sup. :-) Tagging makes everybody's updates take longer, and as a result the server's client counts go up. CVSup7 has a limit of 20, and I can tell you that machine is breathing pretty hard. But it seems to be performing quite well given the load. This is the first time I've ever seen it max out. Other than the increased load because of the number of clients, the bottleneck usually isn't in the server when the tree is tagged. The bottleneck is almost always your hard drive in that case, since it has to edit every file in your repository, write the edited version to a temp file, check the MD5 signature, and then move the temp file to the right place again. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007202101.OAA17106>