On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 16:54, John Aldridge wrote:
> We've progressed a bit in our evaluation of subversion; and have,
> apparently successfully, done a trial import of our old RCS repository,
> using cvs2svn. It took 36 hours to process the 6,500 or so files, and
> generated around 25,000 revisions.
>
> We were surprised that the result is so much bigger than the original
> RCS files: just over 1GB rather than 320MB. It this expected, or is
> something wrong? We'd hoped that the results would be smaller if
> anything, because of the better handling of binary files. The space is
> nearly all taken by "db/strings" file.
I assume that the extra unused logfiles have been removed? Either by
you manually, or automatically (if you're using DB 4.2)?
> Any light which anyone can shed will be gratefully received!
cvs2svn is a separate project: my personal guess is that the very large
size is coming from inefficiency in cvs2svn's ability to deduce complex
branches and tags. It's probably creating many more copies than it
needs to. Either way, it's a problem with cvs2svn, not with Subversion
itself. Subversion *does* store binary files much more efficiently than
RCS. If you had been using Subversion from day one, your repository
would very likely look quite different.
I would advise two things:
1. make sure you run your tests using the absolute latest version of
cvs2svn. ('svn checkout http://svn.collab.net/repos/cvs2svn/trunk')
2. discuss these problems on the users@cvs2svn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 14 00:01:40 2004