On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:05:17PM -0400, Mix wrote:
> Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> >>yesterday we tried to check out our repository via http to a working
> >>copy on a windows network drive. the result was not to good: more
> >>than 6 hours, compared to 15-20 minutes with source safe.
> >
> >That's pretty horrifying, but I'd be leery of drawing many conclusions
> >without also testing on a local filesystem on your Windows box. That
> >way, you can discount any possible overhead from SMB. It would be
> >interesting to see if there's a performance difference between the two.
>
> Well, in many environments the only writable area you have is a network
> drive. Checking out from a remote cvs repository and having your working
> copy be on an NFS mount isn't that bad. Its horrible with svn because of
> those darn .svn directories that hold so much stuff. In this instance
> svn is noticably slower than cvs, sometimes painfully slow. So its not
> just a windows issue, its a network filesystem issue in general since
> svn takes the view that we can just write out whatever we want in a
> working copy since "disk space is cheap". Unfortunately network
> bandwidth often isn't.
this problem will likely be aleviated somewhat when we start caching
the contents of .svn/entries. at the moment that file is being parsed
many many more times than it should, which would be very bad if it is
located on a network filesystem. work is being done on caching this
information, so it would be interesting to see how much that helps the
performance problems you're seeing.
-garrett
--
garrett rooney Remember, any design flaw you're
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net sufficiently snide about becomes
http://electricjellyfish.net/ a feature. -- Dan Sugalski
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Aug 11 19:26:39 2002