Re: SVN dumps much bigger than CVS repository

Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> writes:

> > Is this normal? I though SVN would beat CVS, especially for binary files
> > such as these, not lose by a factor of three.
>
> Uncompressed tarfiles, if their contents are mostly text,
> are "not very binary", so to speak, and CVS's diff-based
> approach will work quite well for them. So it's not surprising
> that CVS performs adequately here.
>
> It's a shame Subversion does so much worse, though.

Subversion should actually do much *better* than an RCS file storing
line-based diffs. The Subversion repository stores binary diffs,
which should be much smaller and more compressed. That's why this
scenario sounds so strangely anomolous to me.

> <ignorant>Could the fact that it's a cvs2svn conversion
> be relevant?</ignorant>

That's what I'm wondering. I wondering if cvs2svn somehow stored a
bunch of unrelated nodes, so the 'deltification' never kicked in.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 10 01:50:19 2003