The only other thing worth mentioning is that you'll eat a 2-3x slowdown when using Win2K/XP/2003 as
the server because of Operating System IO overhead.
Some of this slowdown can be avoided by turning off all NTFS features related to update notification
and increasing the size of your disk cache in addition to making sure that WCE is enabled. Cacheman
is a good tool for doing this (except enabling WCE).
For servers, using FAT32 can be a decent performance boost as well, but for clients you definitely
need to be using NTFS.
Another thing to watch out for applies if you plan on on using SVN+SSH as your access method (rare
with Windows servers). http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1204
J Wynia wrote:
> While this is still arguably the prevailing "wisdom", I've watched my
> uptimes on my Windows machines go up substantially over the last 2-3
> years: especially for server machines. My WinXP Subversion server is
> unavailable far more often for dump/load reasons than anything Windows
> related. Even my main XP workstation usually goes 30-60 days without a
> reboot and I put it through a lot of abuse. That's a far cry from the
> nearly daily reboots for NT workstations I had before. Is it as good as
> *nix uptimes of 1-2 years, etc.? No. However, if you're working with an
> internal server that only gets used Mon-Fri and you can schedule things
> like Windows Updates for weekends (once a month), the uptime/stability
> shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Wadsworth, Eric (Contractor) said:
>
>>I prefer *nix boxen for servers, for stability reasons. But that's just
>>me.
>>;)
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 30 18:47:51 2003