[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS Performance Related issue.

From: Rachel Burns
Subject: Re: CVS Performance Related issue.
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:08:14 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711)

Just looking at the RSS footprint of each CVS process it is clear you
are consuming a lot of memory. If you say you have 80+ users always logged
in, then with an avg process size ~60MB, you are talking about 4800MB, 4GB+.
You have adequate swap and plenty of CPUs.

Seems like you have fairly large file sizes that causes the CVS server process footprint to be large. Do you notice the CPU spike when cvsupd starts copying (every 30 mins) ?

We have been using the WANdisco CVS Replicator solution for our replication and performance needs. We previously had 100+ concurrent cvs users connected to a central server, now we have 2 sites with roughly 60-40 split. That cut down the load on our central server quite a bit. Also another nice side effect has been reduced number of CVS processes when users conflicts on same locks. WANdisco has an in-memory lock service that avoids forking CVS processes needlessly while locks are being held elsewhere.

Maninder Singh(SDG) wrote:

Hi All,
        I'm not sure, if this problem is exactly related to cvs, but
please advise..

   We are facing a problem related to the performance of our CVS
server. The system is a Quad Processor, Server Class machine with 4 GB
of RAM. We have a large number of cvs users on this system (more than 80
CVS users are connected concurrently most of the times).

        We are also running cvsup to synchronize two ( 2 ) slave
machines in remote locations on a very short interval of 30 mins; which
is unavoidable.
The following are the load statistics of the machine using the uptime

# uptime
 3:49pm  up 22 days, 13 min,  5 users,  load average: 4.52, 4.26, 4.24

The load shoots upto 5.69 or more at times.

Output from the top command is as follows:
# top
CPU0 states:  4.4% user,  1.3% system,  0.0% nice, 93.1% idle
CPU1 states:  6.0% user,  5.4% system,  0.0% nice, 87.4% idle
CPU2 states: 16.3% user,  1.1% system,  0.0% nice, 81.4% idle
CPU3 states: 82.1% user,  1.1% system,  0.0% nice, 16.1% idle
Mem:  3946640K av, 3883476K used,   63164K free,       0K shrd,   87336K
Swap: 6193120K av,  192300K used, 6000820K free                 2487524K

10721 xxxx    25   0 72236  70M   940 R    89.2  1.8   1:32 cvs
10702 xxxx    18   0 53356  52M  1092 S    13.8  1.3   0:08 cvs
10722 xxxx   17   0 61000  59M  1160 S    11.3  1.5   0:08 cvs
10701 xxxx    15   0 76052  74M   880 S     9.4  1.9   0:03 cvs

8115 root      15   0 33256  32M 23068 D     6.5  0.8  10:11 cvsupd

Could it be that, cvs is taking too much memory hungry (as I can make
out from the above stats)? Do we need to upgrade on RAM or is there
still a better solution to this problem?


Maninder Singh


Info-cvs mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]