Are you sure you accounted for the space correctly? I find these
results rather odd because it is known that svn stores binary deltas for
all files ( it doesn't know or care if they are text or binary ) but cvs
stores each revision of a binary file in its entirety, so versioning
binary files this way takes up a lot of space.
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 <http://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 ?
>
> Regards
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 19 22:12:13 2006