Re: svn - but smaller?

ok, looks like the mere fix to the strlen() call as you suggested 
earlier doesn't resolve the issue of CPU eating up.

On 12.04.2013 08:43, mrboco@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 12, 2013 1:09:53 AM UTC+6, Markiyan Kushnir wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> You may just fix typo and not use other fixes. I doubt they actual for remote fetching.

I agree that that long update is not a critical problem per se. People 
would set up a cron job to run svnup regularly and not be bothered with 
it. However it might become an inconvenience if one wants to update 
sources ad-hoc, as for example during solving an issue. The thing is 
that the proper time to check out a full base/head at 4Mbit/s is 7.5 
minutes. And a subsequent update of the tree is proportional to the 
amount of changes between the revisions, and is often a matter of 
seconds. It would be nice to get comparable time from svnup.

--
Markiyan.

> _______________________________________________
> 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"