Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:34:11 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Subject: Re: organization Message-ID: <20050329213411.GC3199@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20050329172218.GA86797@nowhere> References: <319cceca0503281001792baf39@mail.gmail.com> <4248557A.7000302@elischer.org> <20050328191758.GB3141@britannica.bec.de> <20050329150538.GA84533@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20050329172218.GA86797@nowhere>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:22:19AM -0600, Craig Boston wrote: > The last I heard, subversion did not scale well to the massive amount of > files that are in the FreeBSD repository. IIRC it's been a while since > this was tested, so it may or may not be true anymore. SVK may > partially address this by bypassing libwc. That's not true. There are two major problems with subversion, compared to CVS: - the size of the working copy is doubled (because of the local cache) - annotation is linear in the number of revisions (of a file?) The first can be work-arounded by using SVK, but often is also an advantage, because e.g. diff is a pure local operation which doesn't have to contact the server. The second is related to how subversion stores the data. There are some persons working on speeding it up by using a cache, but I'm not sure how far the work is. On the other hand, CVS definitely doesn't scale to large repositories too, just think about the time a "cvs up" or "cvs tag" needs. You can't make everything fast, it is a compromise between speed, disk space and not to forget atomarity. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050329213411.GC3199>