Michael/Peter, > - Indicate which SVN filesystem you used > (bdb vs. fsfs).
Things like the Server OS and client OS and network transport (ie: T1000) would also be useful. However I personally think that benchmarks of SCM systems are not very helpful. I've never seen an analysis of SCM implementation cost / benefit that indicated that the performance of a system affected the implementation cost or the benefit to the organisation or people using it. In fact mostly I see "usability", "accessibility", "ensure integrity", "track relationship between changes", "manage change", "determine metrics (by reports)" etc as being the key drivers. If you can include something in your benchmark about how you envisage the numbers may help or relate to cost/benefit analysis or some way of interpreting them - I think that would be very helpful. Finally you mentioned that your stats on svn were based on a cvs2svn script - it could therefore be assumed that you know more about / work more with / CVS than SVN. If you are publishing the benchmark on a non-partisan site (ie: not cvs.org, cvsnt.org etc) making that sort of stuff clear helps transparency. If you are publishing to a partisan site then it'll simply be assumed that the info is biased that way anyway. Regards, Arthur _______________________________________________ info-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
