Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
It's a snow day today - about 10 inches or so far so I'm testing over a 376k DSL instead of the 100Mbit switched network. The test consists of about 530 files, mostly Java source and xml, 3Mb total size. With Build 69 on the either the client or server, a cvs -z9 checkout takes about 75 seconds. The same with Build 68 on both the client and server takes 13 seconds. Here are the individual results. The 1.3Ghz PIII is the production server, so I did not test it with Build 69. Everything is running W2K, Pro on the clients, Server on the servers. Client 800Mhz PIII 68 Server 1.3Ghz PIII 68 real 0m12.651s Client 800Mhz PIII 69 Server 1.3Ghz PIII 68 real 1m16.362s Client 800Mhz PIII 69 Server 400Mhz PII 69 real 1m14.423s Client 800Mhz PIII 69 Server 400Mhz PII 68 real 1m16.262s Client 800Mhz PIII 68 Server 400Mhz PII 68 real 0m12.237s "Tony Hoyle" <tmh at nodomain.org> wrote in message news:b1umuh$hm9$1 at sisko.nodomain.org... > John Goehringer wrote: > > > Yes, removing FlushFileBuffers does solve the performance problem. > > > > I saw the most effect on large checkouts - you can 'hear' the difference > > in disk activity as the files are written to disk on the client. The > > server seems to do the same - I guess from flushing the last accessed time > > of the file. > > > > I can get some comparison timings if you like. > > > If it's going to make that much difference I'll push out another release on > Monday. That'll give me enough time to make sure removing it doesn't cause > too many problems and pick up any feedback from this release over fixable > bugs. > > Tony >