On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Eric Johnson <e...@tibco.com> wrote: > > Yes, I can do that. Probably going to do that in chunks, otherwise it >> has the same awful performance profile as svnsync over a low latency >> connection. >> > > FWIW, svnsync and svnrdump make identical calls over the network so their > performance on the network is identical. Of course svnsync can be resumed > though, so I would use that. > > Your problems make me wonder how svnsync would handle this same problem > though. I suppose if svnrdump ends with an error, then we can assume > svnsync does as well and does not sync the transaction that fails. So it > probably handles it better. > > Unless you have a specific reason to use a dump file, I would use svnsync > to a local file:// URL. > <http://markphip.blogspot.com/> > Old thread on this topic: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-08/0309.shtml I recall doing testing in a pristine environment and the Apache server logs of the server with the repository being "synched" were identical when using svnrdump or svnsync to transfer entire repository. At the time I was surprised by this and was hoping I could build something with svnrdump to do a faster initial sync of a repository. Anyway, for your use case it sounds like svnsync would be the right option. In fact, I think it pretty much is always the right option unless you really need a dump stream -- such as for Git import. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
