[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 5 Sep, Max Bowsher wrote: >> > Is there any further info on configuring CVS to use gdbm? Especially, >> > benchmarks? >> >> No benchmarks, but the "appropriate edits" to use gdbm exist in the Cygwin >> package of cvs. > > Interesting. That would explain the recent Cygwin announcement of the > need to use the conversion program following the recent changes to gdbm. > > So I take it that there's some benefit seen in using gdbm; presumably > related to performance? But that for some reason it's not considered > the right choice to make it the default for Unix. (Perhaps because > Unix people prefer to use plain text where possible, to leverage from > all those existing plain text utilities.)
There are 2 separate issues - text/dbm and ndbm/gdbm. text/dbm: This is supposed to be an optimization option for repositories with truly huge modules and/or val-tags files. I don't know of any benchmarks to quantify the effect. ndbm/gdbm: ndbm (.dir/.pag) is not functional on FAT filesystems, hence not suitable for use on Cygwin. Max. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
