From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 22:09:37 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FE116A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:09:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [69.55.238.164]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90BA43D53 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:09:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from craig@tobuj.gank.org) Received: by ion.gank.org (mail, from userid 1001) id 974192AF51; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:09:36 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:09:34 -0600 From: Craig Boston To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050329220933.GC86797@nowhere> Mail-Followup-To: Craig Boston , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <319cceca0503281001792baf39@mail.gmail.com> <4248557A.7000302@elischer.org> <20050328191758.GB3141@britannica.bec.de> <20050329150538.GA84533@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20050329172218.GA86797@nowhere> <20050329213411.GC3199@britannica.bec.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050329213411.GC3199@britannica.bec.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: organization X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:09:37 -0000 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:34:11PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > That's not true. There are two major problems with subversion, compared > to CVS: > - the size of the working copy is doubled (because of the local cache) > - annotation is linear in the number of revisions (of a file?) Not trying to spread false information about Subversion -- I like it very much and use it for all my personal projects :) Just stating my opinion based on observations made while using it. > The first can be work-arounded by using SVK, but often is also an > advantage, because e.g. diff is a pure local operation which doesn't > have to contact the server. Well, you don't have the extra working copy files, but you usually end up eating up at least as much space for your local repository mirror; unless you have a lot of working copies checked out. > On the other hand, CVS definitely doesn't scale to large repositories too, > just think about the time a "cvs up" or "cvs tag" needs. You can't make > everything fast, it is a compromise between speed, disk space and not to > forget atomarity. Keeping in mind that the tests I ran were back in the pre-1.0 days (right before 1.0 IIRC), Subversion was much faster on update, but significantly slower for checkout and diffs. Those operations scaled worse than O(n) as the repository grew. It would be interesting to run some more benchmarks (clkao's mirror eliminates much of the import hassle) and see how the latest subversion compares. Also, as Bruce reminded me, the new fsfs storage backend may have different characteristics that need to be taken into account. Of course Subversion fares much better on the atomicity issue, that's a given :) svk may be able to help too. I tried it for a while but eventually gave up because getting the perl bindings installed and working was a bit of a black art. Probably time to try the port again. Craig