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

RE: Re: More performance

From: André Pönitz <andre_at_wasy.de>
Date: 2005-09-14 15:35:53 CEST

Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> [...]
> Ben> What this means is that 1% of the clock time was spent
> Ben> installing new files, and 99% of the clock time was spent
> Ben> rewriting the .svn/entries files for 71,000 files. That's a
> Ben> whole lot of xml parsing and rewriting.

Is there some technical or political reason to use XML in these files?
If indeed 99% of the time is spent reading and writing XML to files
of such a simple structure I'd wager a bet that using some home-grown
file format might speed up things considerably.
> Ben> I expect it will take almost as long to run 'svn update', 'svn
> Ben> status', or 'svn commit'. These are all situations where you're
> Ben> telling the client to do a walk over a gigantic working copy.
> That's depressing. If true, it would mean that Subversion across the
> board is 3x slower than CVS.

Indeed. Especially since SVN is almost uniformly better than CVS,
speed and disk space consumption are two big (remaining?) disadvantages
that makes a CVS vs SVN decision less clear than one would expect.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 14 15:38:27 2005

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.