Re: Eliminating the text-base penalty

On Sunday 29 September 2002 3:35 pm, Greg Hudson wrote:

> I think you guys are considering only the easy cases.

Or, to put it differently,

  | My experiment was admittedly a very simple-minded one,
  | and represents a best case in a few ways.

Haven't I read that somewhere before? :-)

> My job's
> source tree has 100K or so nodes, and it takes well over half an
> hour to stat them over AFS over a cable modem.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."

Why use a working copy that's AFS-mounted over your
broadband link? Why not have a local working copy at
home, and talk to a Subversion server at work?
Of course, you're using CVS right now, and maybe
mounting your working copy is the right way to go
with CVS; but surely it isn't with Subversion.

> That said, we use CVS, and we're not about to run out and use
> Perforce for fast crawl capability. Getting a list of modified
> files in my whole working dir quickly would be nice sometimes, but
> usually I'm working in a small subset of the tree.

Or, to put it differently,

  | Further, most checkins don't need to check the entire tree for
  | changed files, nor even a substantial fraction of the entire tree.
  | Usually you're working in a directory somewhere near the leaves,
  | with (if you're unlucky) 1000 files under it. No?

I think I read *that* somewhere before, too. :-)

-- 
g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org