Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Questions from a Subversion user

[Jan Hudec]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:44:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:46:44AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 2. How suitable is Arch for large repositories?  (I'm talking here in
> >    the 100MB to 1GB range)  If it is unsuitable, why, and how does it
> >    compare to Subversion or CVS for these?
> 
> A lot of people will talk about this at great length, and nobody
> actually knows, because they've never actually tried it (although a
> few people have constructed artificial test cases which will prove
> anything you like). There's no reason to think it will be as slow as
> subversion for this, though.

One thing to keep in mind however is, that you need to store an archive
cached revision every now and then. Otherwise arch might end up applying
all those 1G patches and _that_ would be slow. But with enough cached
revisions it's not a problem.

> >    How does Arch insure repository
> >    integrity over such a protocol?
> 
> You really shouldn't be using the ftp transport for writing to the
> repository. Use something vaguely secure like sftp or webdav+ssl
> instead.

However the principle is still the same - it locks subtrees by renaming
them (and doing aditional checks so it does not rely on conditions that
don't hold in all protocols it uses).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>