On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:37:35PM +0000, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote: > Attached is a recent test i did on subversion regarding exactly this, > the the size of the repository I came to the same conclusion as you > (the db is big) in this case 161MB for a raw import of portage versus > CVS's 70MB. However, 70MB is NOT the actual amount of data, as if we do use subversion, we WILL want our old CVS history. The CVS repository is currently 899Mb in size. The gentoo-x86 module that you see as the portage tree is 572Mb.
Another major question I have, is how will it deal with lots of concurrent access? CVS excels in this regard, as it does locking on a per-file basis for writing (no locks on reading). AFAIK with BDB databases there is locking only for the entire database, so there may be an issue of a LOT more lock contention which would slow things down a lot. There are very seldom less than four simultanous cvs actions going on, and most of the time things are much busier than that (I've seen the server having 20 cvs operations going on at the same time). A normal CVS checkout of the gentoo-x86 from the tree (locally on the CVS server) takes 8 minutes. Your SVN co took 3.8 times as long as the CVS checkout so thats nearly 30 minutes to do a checkout :-(. I am really worried about lock contention however. We already keep all of the cvs locks on a tmpfs filesystem for speed and disk fragmentation reasons. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
