On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 9:10 PM Tom Browder <tom.brow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 19:45 Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:56 AM Tom Browder <tom.brow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:10 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 6:31 PM Tom Browder <tom.brow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > ... >> > > > Given that history will be lost, does anyone see any problems with my >> > > > recovery plan? >> > ... >> > > If you have working copies and you don't care about history, why are >> > > you spending any cycles on doing anything with hotcopy? You've lost >> > > history anyway, why keep any of it? >> > >> > Cycles aren't important, but the size of the data is. Transferring the >> > working copy from scratch would take a LONG time, while the bulk of >> > the data are already there in the hotcopy. >> >> Under what possible conditions wound importing a single snapshot of >> the current working copy, without history, take more time than working >> from a hotcopy to overlay the changes on top of that hotcopy? > > > I don’t know, Nico, I am a real novice at this. Your first answer didn’t help > because I didn’t know the ramifications of what I was trying to do. > > The original data, from just six months ago, was about 27 Gb, which took a > very long time to upload from my home computer to my remote server. Since > the only hotcopy, done shortly after the repo was loaded, there has been very > little change, so if I could start with the hotcopy and somehow synch my > working copy without pushing 27 Gb again, life would be better.
??? An import of the copy of the working data has no history. Is the *data* 27 GB, with no .svn content, 27 GB ? What in the devil are you putting in source control? I'm not objecting to your situation, just really confused by the content you are dealing with.
