[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: Re: [rfc]Checkout without the .svn Directories

From: Johnson, Rick <JohnsonR_at_gc.adventist.org>
Date: 2004-12-08 16:46:49 CET


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Niels Skou Olsen [mailto:nso@manbw.dk]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:04 AM
>To: Anthony Metcalf
>Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
>Subject: Re: [rfc]Checkout without the .svn Directories

>Anthony Metcalf <anthony.metcalf@anferny.ath.cx> writes:

>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:29:18 +0100
>> Niels Skou Olsen <nso@manbw.dk> wrote:
>>> Come to think of it.. If OP's goal is to keep a huge working copy
>>> updated with the least possible amount of network traffic, then just

>>> do the obvious; make a normal working copy with 'svn co' and keep it

>>> updated with'svn up'. This way you pay up front with a full 'svn
>>> but you pay only once. All 'svn up' after this will be as cheap as
>>> can be.
>> No OP's (my) goal is to keep a copy of a modest repo up to date with
>> the least effort, and least disk space. Low bandwidth would be nice,
>> but disk space is the primary concern, followed by ease, and not
>> having to remember a different command for this server.

>With regard to ease, I can't see it being any easier than a simple 'svn
>command. With regard to disk space, you say yourself that it's a
working copy of modest size. And besides, disk space is cheap these
days. :-)

>> i.e. "Whats the point of keeping two copies of the repo on a disk
>> this wc will *never* be modified directly?".

>The point is, as I see it, to minimize the number of server
round-trips, and when server round-trips *are* necessary, then only
exchange diffs with the server. This gives the best overall performance.

>Best regards,

I'm sick and tired of people saying "disk space is cheap these days". It
may be cheap to buy but it's not cheap to administer and/or install in
many servers. If I need to add disk space to one of my production web
servers I need to perform the following steps:

1. See if there is spare disk slot to put another disk in.
2. Purchase appropriate SCSI disk at ruinous price (not cheap like IDE).
3. Beg server Admin to add it to the server.
4. If it's being added to a RAID 5 array, backup entire data partition,
re-partition, restore backup. Server down during this process.
5. Listen to server Admin gripe about how big I'm making his daily

I don't think my "workflow" above is that different from many other

For me, having the ability to have an updateable copy (I won't call it a
working copy since no work would be done in it), that isn't twice the
size of the exported copy would be great. It would either allow me to
host twice as many sites on a particular server or halve the amount of
data I'm backing up each night. Either of these things would lessen my
administrative load and make me happy.

I am very happy with Subversion and using 'svn up' to update a website
is great but the amount of space the working copy takes up vs. the size
of the site gets me down sometimes.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 8 16:49:02 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.