Re: Performance issues versus CVS

Keven Ring wrote:

> solo turn wrote:
>> since 0.33 using linux as client (i just tried with reiserfs) is very
>> fast (10 times as fast as windows),

> Still, the times between CVS and an SVN server shouldn't be *THAT* far
> off. I can understand that the HTTP would be a bit slower due to the
> extra chattiness of it, but still not 10x slower!

Solo was saying that Windows client was 10x slower than Unix client, which I can
certainly find plausible. NTFS is not well suited for lots of small files (with
default settings); changing the parameters can yield suprising increases in
performance.

One feature of NTFS is that the block size is also the size of a node in the
directory information structure, and that if the file is actually small enough,
it will be stored in the directory structure instead of as a seperate file in
the filesystem. This method can lead to more slack space (allocated but unused
space on the drive), but storage is so cheap, I would rather waste space than
time. I used an 8k block size for an NTFS mail application and noticed a
definite performance boost.

OTOH, this has no bearing on your issue, since you are using Fedora Core 1.
What would be useful is to find out what filesystem you are using on the
partition where your WC is loaded. For example, if you are using a Samba share
or NFS, there are known performance penalties for storing your files on a
networked share.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org