Hi.
A few months ago my company had to abandon svn usage due to usability
and performance issue. Seeing how great subversion is we will use it again
sooner or later I'm sure.
In the meantime I'm keeping an eye on the great work you all are doing.
I've seen so much improvement I decided to do some comparison between
our current cvs system an svn. I thought some of the figures might be of
interest
so here goes.
The source code consists of 232 MB of files taking 260 MB on disk (NTFS).
It has 12 290 files in 2603 folders.
A freshly checked out WC looks like:
CVS: 234/307 MB, 28 805 files in 5207 folders
SVN: 473/706 MB, 74 470 files in 28 643 folders
Tests are done from our somewhat outdated quad P2 Linux server with
RAID5 disks.
The client is a modern fast P4 3GHz with a disk that randomly reads
40-60 MB/s.
Norton AV is enabled and scans all accesses and all files. Network
access is pretty
much unloaded 100 Mb/s. Tests are unfortunately not entirely complete.
Client <-> Server
TCVS <-> CVS
co 20 min wo. compression
up 2 minutes
TSVN 1.1.1 <-> SVN 1.1.1 BDB
co ~40 min wo. compression
up 1 minute
TSVN 1.1.1 <-> SVN 1.1.1 FSFS
co 40 min wo. compression
up 2 minutes
I'd like to note that earlier tests when we abandon svn we had 10-20 minutes
for an 'up'. Rather impressive speed-up if I may say so.
But still, the enormous amount of files and directories imposed by svn
on the WC
appears rather steep to me. Are there any thoughts on doing some
redesign of this
system to further improve performance? Over 200 MB wasted space, an
additional
6 times the number of files and 11 times the number of folders doesn't
scale well
with tools etc.
If there is any interest I can try to do some more testing such as with
compile times
and trying 'up' on a compiled WC.
Congrats to the good work so far!
/Nicke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 4 21:25:46 2004