On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Michael Haggerty wrote: > Peter Toft wrote: > > I just made benchmarks of CVS 1.12.12 versus svn 1.1.3 (r12730) > > for "update to tag/date/current" operations for a 2500 files project with > > 6 years timespan in CVS. Approx 62 MB. > > > > I found that CVS always outperforms Subversion typically with 2-3x > > > > Can anyone acknowledge that performance? Any similar experiments. > > > > It must be noted that the SVN archive was made with cvs2svn - using the > > CVS project. > > > > I will publish my results when I have a bit more time... > > This is not terribly surprising; svn is not especially fast at > checkout/update operations. At the recent SVN summit there was a lot of > talk about how to improve the situation by using a different repository > storage format. Part, though probably not most, of the extra cost is > writing the second copy of the pristine text in the working copy. > > But, when you publish the results, I would like to suggest the following: > > - Indicate which SVN filesystem you used (bdb vs. fsfs). They differ > considerably in performance.
I have fsfs - bad or good? That came from cvs2svn > - Indicate what access method you used (file://, svn://, svn+ssh://, > http://, https://). They differ considerably in performance. I have to use svn+ssh://, but I have also make localhost measurements using file:// > - To be fair, include a timing comparison of "cvs tag" vs "svn tag" :-) Good idea - any other operations also? > Michael > Best Peter Toft, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://petertoft.dk _______________________________________________ info-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
