Re: svn - but smaller?

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"
>>
>

_______________________________________________
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"