[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Large file actual performance report; cvs use of ,v header is someti

From: Arthur Barrett
Subject: RE: Large file actual performance report; cvs use of ,v header is sometimes non-optimal.
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:52:26 +1100


>   * Source file size (UTF-16LE XML file) after it is reduced 
> in size by 50%
>     by recoding to UTF-8 is on the order of 50MB plus or minus.

CVSNT (yes it runs on linux and is 'free') has native support for UTF16
files, if using such files then using a server with native support is
probably more sensible.

> At the revision that would be 1.26, it was realized that 
> 1.23, 1.24, and
> 1.25 were a dead end and that 1.26 was a rework from 1.22.  
> It seemed easy
> enough to delete 1.23, 1.24, and 1.25 

No what would have been easy was to do cvs up -j 1.25 -j 1.22 (check
syntax) to 'merge' revision 1.22 to head (making revision 1.22 current).
Again if you are using CVSNT this will also create a mergepoint so you
can 'see' what happened.  Since this does not require admin priv it is
obviously much 'easier' than an admin command.  A good rule of thumb is
'if you are about to use any cvs admin command then ask if there is a
better way of achieving the same result without the admin command
because there is one'.

> This starts to make it more obvious why CVS use with large 
> files is discouraged on list.  

I'd personally not call 50M large, over 500M files I'd consider large.  


Arthur Barrett

reply via email to

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