On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 08:32, STF SVN wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 22:40, David Weintraub wrote:
>>
>> The standard 'svn' protocol is faster, but it uses port 3690 by
>> default. It is very likely that your VPN will block traffic to this
>> port.
>
> Why so?
Sane network security polici
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 22:40, David Weintraub wrote:
>
> The standard 'svn' protocol is faster, but it uses port 3690 by
> default. It is very likely that your VPN will block traffic to this
> port.
Why so?
> You can start svnserve on another port, and you can use ssh+svn
> which allows fo
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 16:40, David Weintraub wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:59 AM, STF SVN wrote:
>> I already have a working SVN server using HTTP, but I'd like to see
>> some other alternatives, especially those which could provide better
>> performance. The problem right now is that som
On Jul 29, 2010, at 15:40, David Weintraub wrote:
> Subversion is known for simplicity, ease of use, but speed isn't one
> of them. The entire .svn directory thing slows Subversion down --
> especially since the entire diff is kept in there.
I wouldn't say Subversion is inherently slow at all. Y
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:59 AM, STF SVN wrote:
> I already have a working SVN server using HTTP, but I'd like to see
> some other alternatives, especially those which could provide better
> performance. The problem right now is that some users are accessing
> the SVN within a VPN tunnel and thin
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 07:16, David Weintraub wrote:
>
> Are you setting up a Subversion repository and don't know whether you
> should use HTTP or SVN, or does your repository allow you to access
> your Subversion repository both ways, and you want to know which to
> use.
>
> SVN is usually quick
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Alec Kloss wrote:
> On 2010-07-08 17:04, David Brodbeck wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> > A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
>> > or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing sto
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:15 AM, STF SVN wrote:
> As we have two protocoles, svn and http, available for
> subversion, I'd like to know if there's any performance comparison
> study on both of them to let us choose the most appropriate one.
> Anyone has any related article on that?
Are you set
On 2010-07-08 17:04, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
> > or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing storage of
> > HTTP/HTTPS/svn/SSH passwords in clear-text by
On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
> or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing storage of
> HTTP/HTTPS/svn/SSH passwords in clear-text by the UNIX or Linux
> versions of Subversion, I don't
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: laps...@gmail.com [mailto:laps...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of STF SVN
>> Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 22:15
>> To: users@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: How to choose between svn
> -Original Message-
> From: laps...@gmail.com [mailto:laps...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of STF SVN
> Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 22:15
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: How to choose between svn & http?
>
> As we have two protocoles, svn and http, a
As we have two protocoles, svn and http, available for
subversion, I'd like to know if there's any performance comparison
study on both of them to let us choose the most appropriate one.
Anyone has any related article on that?
TIA
13 matches
Mail list logo
