Re: performance enhancement by working copy svn server

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mattias Engdegård wrote:

> "Ben Collins-Sussman" <sussman_at_red-bean.com> writes:
>
>> So do we all. That's why we've always talked about making the 'svn
>> edit' model into an *optional* mode of working. Try using subversion
>> with a 700MB source tree; running 'svn status' takes minutes to crawl
>> the tree (along with commits and updates).
>
> No it doesn't, at least not with the WC on a decent local file system
> and there is RAM to cache enough of it - it is usually a matter of
> seconds or less once heated up. (I frequently develop on tmpfs because
> of this, but ext3 works well too.)
>
> But of course I agree, the current WC organisation scatters
> information in lots and lots of files and directories and with very
> expensive locking; there is a lot to gain by saner arrangements.
>
> Of course, for those stuck with a slow file system (NTFS, UFS, NFS
> etc), even a serious WC reorganisation may not help enough. This
> remains to be seen - an 'svn edit' option would feel like admitting
> defeat.
>

Yes, I agree it would "feel like admitting defeat". I have no problem
with it if it is an option.

Just as a data point:

I work with a 6 Gig working copy (14 Gig repository) and can do status and
commit and update operations in seconds on Win XP SP2 with 2 Gig of RAM and
NTFS.

-- 
David Wayne Summers        "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint =  0B44 B118 85CC F4EC 7021  1ED4 1516 5B78 E320 2001

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-10 19:37:13 CEST