A single large file is going to give you much better performance than many
small files. This is especially true with the FAT file system. The use of
long file names makes the problem worse as directory tables can get large
and sparse. This may or may not be the issue you're seeing.
I'm not the original poster of this thread, but I have some feed back on
using USB drives.
I have several. They are all 2.0 and plugged into 2.0 Hubs (you get a
little pop-up message if you plug a 2.0 device into a 1.x port). Anyway, I
don't keep repositories on there (although I did start to at one point).
I do keep a couple of checked out working copies that I update (svn update,
I don't really work from the drive) periodically so I have a reference copy
of some files with me. I notice that the svn update is _far_ slower in that
drive than I'd expect (in comparison to other file operations).
I don't notice the slowness with other operations: I routinely copy large
files (100MB) to and from the drive and it's quick. I also copy small
files, but not _many_ at a time, and have not noticed that being slow.
Usually, it's so quick I don't notice at all.
The operations (just about all that write to the working copy: update,
checkout, ...) are just as slow using SVN (command line) as using TSVN (with
all the overlays and such disabled in TSVN).
So, it's NOT TSVN, it may be the underlying SVN libraries, and I'm sure
things would be faster if write-back caching were enabled, but probably not
Received on Fri May 25 03:28:36 2007