Is disk usage size really your main concern?
Do revision tests 10,20,40,80,100 times and start to see which is
faster, and whether or not you care that subversion might take up a bit
CVS's performance will degrade proportional to the history/size of the
file. Subversions shouldn't to the same degree. (at least last time I
Of course, that's not to take away from an apparent anomaly in svn's
storage (does svn really store binary diff's?) you seem to point out.
From: Simon Butler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:52 PM
To: Alfredo Anderson
Subject: Re: CVSNT and Subversion binary file handling comparison
hi, did you compare times for checkout/update/commit etc ?
On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Alfredo Anderson wrote:
Hi, we are evaluating CVSNT and Subversion.
Comparing binary files handling, we've found that CVSNT seems to
be much more efficient than Subversion.
We tested with the file mysql-noinstall-5.0.18-win32.zip
(38.401.269 bytes) , downloaded from www.mysql.com
The next table shows the file system space used by subversion
and CVSNT after operations 1, 2, 3 y 4.
1 2 3
SVN: 37.932.031 37.983.254 46.071.560
CVS: 38.535.677 38.587.299 38.779.655
1: zip file added to the repository
2: access.cfg file was eliminated from the .zip and the change
3: mysqlclient.lib file was eliminated from the .zip and the
change was commited
4: mysqld-debug.exe file was eliminated from the .zip and the
change was commited
On our first test we used a zip file with compressed images and
we got similar results. Then we used the mysql installer to work on a
public accesible file (in case that someone was interested in checking
Somebody can confirm that the performance difference in handling
binary files between CVSNT and Subversion is indeed like the one that
our tests show up ?
There is a way to improve the binary files handling of
unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com For
additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Mar 18 00:48:05 2006