Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> 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.
Ben: This explanation doesn't feel right. This would imply that there was
about 680MB of extra directory skels stored in 'strings' - that seems a bit
much.
Are there any circumstances where a repository load might result in an
inefficiently deltified?
Do you think studying the data in the 'representations' table might be
informative?
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 14 00:39:46 2004