[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: sccs2rcs to perl

From: Stephen Rasku
Subject: Re: sccs2rcs to perl
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:55:37 -0800 (PST)

>Subject: Re: sccs2rcs to perl
>To: msterret@coat.com (Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-)
>Cc: woods@weird.com, info-cvs@gnu.org, bug-cvs@gnu.org, 
>From: larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
>List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-cvs/>
>Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:39:01 -0500 (EST)
>Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.- writes:
>> Well, at this moment, we have 1835 SCCS directories and an absolute ton
>> of source.  SCCS isn't the fastest thing to use -- I believe RCS blows
>> it out of the water in the most common case of getting the most recent
>> version out of the repository -- especially on NFS mounted disk, this
>> gets to be an issue.
>You may find your belief to be mistaken -- I can't think of any reason
>to expect CVS to be faster than SCCS, unless you plan to switch from NFS
>access to CVS's client/server mode (which I would strongly advise -- we
>have had lots of reports of repository corruption caused by NFS
>interoperability problems).

I believe what he is refering to is that the more SCCS will get slower the 
more revisions you have in a file.  Getting a file from RCS/CVS should be a 
constant time event for the latest version because RCS/CVS stores the latest 
revision verbatim.  However, as I understand it,  SCCS saves each version as 
"#ifdefs".  I don't think it stores a complete copy of the latest revision.  
As such, it will have to calculate what is in the latest version and how long 
this takes will depend on how many revisions you have.  

Stephen Rasku                   E-mail: stephen@tgivan.com
Senior Software Engineer        Web:    http://www.pop-star.net/
TGI Technologies

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]