[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Subversion branch deltification policy is more space-hungry than CVS

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-05-28 16:18:16 CEST

"Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
> Karl: Yes, I've seen one report of unexpectedly large size even with
> cvs2svn --trunk-only.
> However, all other factors aside, svn stores multiple fulltexts for a file
> when it is copied and then modified, whereas cvs stores only one fulltext.

Sure, I wasn't questioning that, it's obviously factually correct.

My question is: is there reason to believe that, in practice, this
property of active Subversion branches is a significant factor in
increased repository size?

This isn't a question of how the Subversion filesystem works, it's a
question about statistical patterns in real-lifed repositories. For
example, if it turns out that DB overhead is using 10x the space that
these branch tip fulltexts are using, then optimizing active tips of
branches would be pointless.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 28 17:39:09 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.