Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:42:29 +0300 From: Markiyan Kushnir <markiyan.kushnir@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <5166F605.4080602@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130411225319.M56386@sola.nimnet.asn.au> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- 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?5166F605.4080602>