On 7/26/05, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 14:18 -0700, jason marshall wrote:
> ... snip
> > I encourage the SVN team to reassess their definition of 'reasonable
> > working set', and consider if the tool as currently presented can meet
> > reasonable performance metrics given that definition.
>
> What do you consider a "ridiculously large" working copy?
> I routinely work with branches that have nearly 50,000 files in
> them (totalling over 1GB) and find the performance of subversion
> quite acceptable.
What do you consider to be 'quite acceptable'? I don't consider a 20
minute cleanup to be that. How long does a full update take? I
clocked a small one (20 files) at just under 10 minutes. It still
seems to me like a cleanup should be faster than an update, but I lack
insight into just what a cleanup does.
That's about what I would consider to be Very Large, which is about
the size of this tree. I wasn't the one who characterized it as
ridiculously large, hence my insistence that it wasn't. If our
definitions line up, but our experiences don't, then that would
suggest misconfiguration of our server, which is entirely possible.
>
> Of course, things do run much faster if I can pick out only the
> pieces I'm interested in (which is made much easier by a great
> tool like subversion!)
That's true, but the coordination effort is higher, and the chance for
angst is higher as well.
I like to have my tools do what tools can do, and the humans do
everything else. Keeping files synchronized? That's a tool's job.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
> MLB Associates | Embedded world
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
-Jason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 27 06:44:02 2005