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

Re: CVSNT and Subversion binary file handling comparison

From: Kevin Grover <kogrover_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 2006-03-18 01:54:48 CET


However, keep in mind that Subversion keeps a local 'clean' copy of files. When you commit those clean copies must be updated also. If you where to test updates on a very slow or dialup connection (or with vary large binary files), I'd guess that you'd find Subversion faster: It creates the deltas locally and only transmits that data. Also, because of the local clean copies, you can do comparisions and reverts on your working copy while not having access to the repository (while on a plane for example).

Futhermore, with Subversion you get versioned properties and directory and rename tracking. Because of all of these, I would suggest you not be 'fooled' by a possibly meaningless statistic.

After using both CVS and SVN, I am loath to go back to CVS. I find branching and tags much easier in SVN.

An Off-Topic Aside:
The only thing that has prevented me from converting all of my old CVS repositories to SVN is that I can not seem to get Subversion to compile on a (very) old AIX box (AIX 4.2.1). I have to keep that old OS around (for a few years anyway) because of an application that I must run in it. (Politics and OS library issues). We've talked about just moving the repository to SVN to a Linux box and then using Linux so do the SVN stuff and just serve the filesystem via NFS.

Anway, good luck. It would be interesting to see a real-world comparision of CVSNT and SVN, but keep in mind the other benifits before deciding.

- Kevin

----- Original Message ----
From: Alfredo Anderson <alfredo_e_anderson@hotmail.com>
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:36:46 PM
Subject: CVSNT and Subversion binary file handling comparison

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 4
 SVN: 37.932.031 37.983.254 46.071.560 72.523.597
 CVS: 38.535.677 38.587.299 38.779.655 38.990.102
 1: zip file added to the repository
 2: access.cfg file was eliminated from the .zip and the change was commited
 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 our results).
 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 Subversion ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Mar 18 01:55:44 2006

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.