[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Alternative for binary files

From: Noel Yap
Subject: Re: Alternative for binary files
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:14:55 -0800 (PST)

--- Paul Sander <address@hidden> wrote:
> >--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
> >My company is currently using CVS to manage some
> third-party vendor
> >really big, big tree with really many, many very
> big, big files.
> >The result, obviously, is totally unacceptable. 
> Even one of this
> >files may take something like half an hour to check
> out, and that's
> >for "just" around 20 MB.
> >I've been investigating the Web for a (free
> software) alternative, but
> >up to now found none.
> >So the question is... is there in development for
> CVS any solution for
> >this problem?  Or do anyone here faced a similar
> problem *and* has
> >found a reasonable solution?  BTW, I only need
> versioning, not
> >merging.
> Can anyone suggest a way of copying very big, big
> files across a network
> without using a lot of time?

I think it's been mentioned before that CVS would
benefit from using rsync but I don't think anyone has
needed it so badly that they've actually implemented
it.  It sounds like the original poster has that need
now.  Hopefully, they'll supply the needed patches
rather than going with another tool.

For those unfamiliar with rsync, IIRC it gains its
speed by sending hashes of the diffs of files between
source and destination plus a little overhead.  Of
course, if it's a new file, it would take a wee bit
little longer than a plain rcp.


Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at
or bid at

reply via email to

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