[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Performance of CVS version SVN

From: Michael Haggerty
Subject: Re: Performance of CVS version SVN
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:08:01 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20060922 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Peter Toft wrote:
> I just made benchmarks of CVS 1.12.12 versus svn 1.1.3 (r12730)
> for "update to tag/date/current" operations for a 2500 files project with 
> 6 years timespan in CVS. Approx 62 MB.
> I found that CVS always outperforms Subversion typically with 2-3x
> Can anyone acknowledge that performance? Any similar experiments.
> It must be noted that the SVN archive was made with cvs2svn - using the 
> CVS project.
> I will publish my results when I have a bit more time...

This is not terribly surprising; svn is not especially fast at
checkout/update operations.  At the recent SVN summit there was a lot of
talk about how to improve the situation by using a different repository
storage format.  Part, though probably not most, of the extra cost is
writing the second copy of the pristine text in the working copy.

But, when you publish the results, I would like to suggest the following:

- Indicate which SVN filesystem you used (bdb vs. fsfs).  They differ
considerably in performance.

- Indicate what access method you used (file://, svn://, svn+ssh://,
http://, https://).  They differ considerably in performance.

- To be fair, include a timing comparison of "cvs tag" vs "svn tag" :-)


reply via email to

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