On Nov 18, 2004, at 7:17 PM, Shurik O wrote:
> Ben,
>
>>> The question is: what are you expecting, realistically? Certainly
>>> CVS would take just about as long, at least in the same ballpark.
>>> Maybe you shouldn't run 'svn status' at the very top of your working
>>> copy, but at selected subdirs further down.
>
> It might be same ballpark for you but I found SVN at least 2 times
> slower in my quick comparison -- see below.
Yup, this is a well-known fact. The .svn/ area has lots of tiny files
(unlike CVS/ areas), and all of the developers are aware that this is
an achilles' heel on NTFS. For disk i/o, we've pretty much
consistently seen that any svn operation on unix takes about 2x longer
on win32. CVS seems to operate at about the same speed on both unix
and win32.
Philip Martin is talking about ways to reduce the number of small files
in .svn/ on the dev@ list, maybe this will help in the medium-term.
That's the hope.
>
> For us converting to from CVS to (excellent in any other respect) SVN
> may turn out to be quite a challenge.
>
Only if your team is used to running CVS on win32 already. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 19 18:56:27 2004