Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> I thought I recalled when svnrdump was first created that there were some
> timing comparisons made with svnsync that showed it to be faster at doing a
> full dump/sync of a remote repository. When I test via HTTP:
> svnrdump dump http://server/repos | svnadmin load repos
> And compare this to an equivalent svnsync, I find that the times it takes to
> do this is essentially the same. I then compared the HTTP access logs of
> the server and see that the two commands produce identical logs, so
> obviously there are not going to be big performance differences.
svnrdump is going to be essentially the same as svnsync as far as
pulling from the source repository is concerned, where svnrdump wins is
pushing to a local repository. In your example above "svnadmin load" is
generally faster than svnsync writing to a file:// URL because load is
one transaction per-revision committed while svnsync is a transaction
and 3 rev-prop changes per-revision. It's an even bigger win for things
like git import as no local Subversion repository need be created.
If you are limited by the speed of the source server, or the speed of
the network between the server and the local machine, then svnrdump may
not offer any significant gain.
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2011-08-22 18:53:24 CEST