Both server run on an underlying apache server. It's really strange that you get 30% speed difference. It may be related to default security settings... I think CollabNet has default security disabled.
VisualSVN server is popular for its server management console. In the console you can configure your users, security, hooks, repos, all in a nice GUI. You have log to event log. You have subversion or windows authentication. And the console can access the server remotely. If you go with CollabNet, you'll have to configure the server by editing configs file manually. No remote support so you need direct access to the server machine. The worst part of it is the "do it yourself" setup where you'll have to spent some hours reading the subversion manual. On Sep 29, 9:45 am, Ari S <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > Currently, we are investigating a migration from CVS to Subversion. > For the Subversion server, we have compared specs of different > suppliers, and the shortlist has now been reduced to two: CollabNet > and VisualSVN Server. > > When performing performance tests with the two, we found CollabNet to > be about 30% faster than VisualSVN server when using "out of the box > configurations" (as little changed as possible). > > Has anyone else found similar (or totally different) figures? > > Are there other pros and cons that should be considered in choosing > between these two vendors? > > Thanks, > Ari S. > The Netherlands.
