Hi Alan,
That's exactly what I was trying to say
by "company mode" <-> "open source mode".
When you're in Open source mode, you have
a copy of the sources on your local cheap hard disk.
You don't backup it because you know that
hundreds of people all around the world
also have a copy on their cheap disk,
and only a world class disaster could be
dangerous.
When you're in company mode, you don't use
cheap disk on each PC because it becomes
a mess. You use a network file server
- with expensive certified fiber disk -
and a tape backup, because you need to have
a garantee that your downtime will be less
than a day per year. With that kind of
tools, the GB costs you something like $750/GB
Now, if your company is doing chip design,
some of the files are 600MB EACH. The whole
repository is several GB...
You definitively don't want to duplicate this.
A commercial version control/problem tracking tool
like synchronicity offers that kind of cache feature,
but it's expensive (even more than the file server).
That's why I was looking to have CVS work
in a mode of default read-only check-outs
so that we could enhance it later with a disk cache,
or switch to a different cheap tool.
Thanks,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 3:55 PM
> To: Gilles-Eric Descamps
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Company mode dev. (one disk server) opposed to
> Open Source
> mode ( each has his own disk server) ?
>
>
>
>
> To my knowledge, CVS does not support your caching idea. Is
> this really a
> problem? Perhaps you could break up your codebase, if a
> given developer
> required access to only 10% of the 600 MB. The other answer
> is to just ignore
> the problem. I bought a 13.6GB disk for $150 last week, and
> saw it on sale
> later for $120. This is about $10/Gb, or about $6 for each
> developer's working
> copy of the sources. At these prices, I wouldn't worry about
> trying too hard to
> find a tricky caching mechanism.
>
> I know this may not be what you want to hear, but it may be
> the most economical
> answer.
>
> Alan Thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gilles-Eric Descamps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on 2000/04/13
> 02:05:53 PM
>
> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: (bcc: Alan Thompson/Orincon)
> Subject: Company mode dev. (one disk server) opposed to Open
> Source mode ( each
> has his own disk server) ?
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to configure CVS to work by default in
> a read-only workspaces with concurrent edit:
>
> We're a company with forty developers checking out
> files (can be big: 600MB text/binary files).
> All these developers share the same disk server.
> With standard CVS, when they build their workspace,
> they end up having a copy of the files & therefore
> we use almost 40x the space.
> Could CVS be configured with some kind of a cache? :
> By default each file is checked-out as read-only. The data
> of the file goes into some kind of shared cache, and
> the programmer's workspace is only populated with
> links to that file. By that way we would use only 1x the disk space.
> Of course, upon editing one file, the link is suppressed
> and replaced by a copy of the file, and several developers
> can work concurrently on the same file.
>
> Is there a way to setup some kind of disk cache for CVS ?
>
> Is there any other version control tool that offers this mechanism
> of disk caching allowing read-only workspaces with concurrent edit ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Gilles-Eric DESCAMPS, Fax (419) 844 7467
> Silicon Access < Enabling the Terabit Internet >
> 2801A Orchard Parkway - San Jose, CA, 95134-2013
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
