RE: Performance of CVS version SVN

[Arthur Barrett]

Michael/Peter,

> - Indicate which SVN filesystem you used 
> (bdb vs. fsfs).  

Things like the Server OS and client OS and network transport (ie:
T1000) would also be useful.

However I personally think that benchmarks of SCM systems are not very
helpful.  

I've never seen an analysis of SCM implementation cost / benefit that
indicated that the performance of a system affected the implementation
cost or the benefit to the organisation or people using it.  In fact
mostly I see "usability", "accessibility", "ensure integrity", "track
relationship between changes", "manage change", "determine metrics (by
reports)" etc as being the key drivers.

If you can include something in your benchmark about how you envisage
the numbers may help or relate to cost/benefit analysis or some way of
interpreting them - I think that would be very helpful.

Finally you mentioned that your stats on svn were based on a cvs2svn
script - it could therefore be assumed that you know more about / work
more with / CVS than SVN.  If you are publishing the benchmark on a
non-partisan site (ie: not cvs.org, cvsnt.org etc) making that sort of
stuff clear helps transparency.  If you are publishing to a partisan
site then it'll simply be assumed that the info is biased that way
anyway.

Regards,


Arthur