On Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2007, Chris Frost wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:55:55AM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote:
> > So maybe an easier solution *could* be to switch to fsvs - see
> > http://fsvs.tigris.org.
> Aha; thanks for mentioning this, Phil! (I had actually glanced at the fsvs
> site earlier, but misinterpreted how it works.)
What could I improve on the description? Do you have any suggestions?
> To compare fsvs and scord: I understood that the working copy library
> would probably need a rewrite to reduce disk usage, so gave up that
> route and wrote scord to work behind subversion's back. You saw the
> need for the rewrite and took it head on, with more significant
> enhancements to boot :).
>
> fsvs's removing .svn, reducing disk usage overhead, and more is pretty
> cool.
I'd like to add: the main cause for writing fsvs was meta-data versioning and
speed.
If you have the time, compare "fsvs status" on a (mostly identical) working
copy with several *hundred* thousand files, on a cold cache, with
a "find -type f" (or something else that tells find to do a lstat() on the
entry) [but don't try svn for that] - fsvs should come out ahead, as it tries
to reduce harddisk seeks as much as possible.
On a hot cache it's a tiny bit slower, as it has a fair bit to do behind the
scenes.
> The scord alternatives list now also tries to contrast fsvs and scord;
> please let me know if you think the comparison could be improved!
No, I think it's sufficient. Thank you!
Regards,
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 24 09:59:53 2007