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

Repository size bdb vs fsfs

From: Alex <xlegion_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2006-05-18 21:57:01 CEST

We are now migrating everything from cvs to subversion and using cvs2svn I
got a dump file size of about 1.8GB.
One misstake I did initially was to create a repository using bdb (default
in svn 1.1.4) so I decided to
convert that into fsfs using dump/load piping.

svnadmin dump -q bdbrepos | svnadmin load < fsfsrepos

All went well but the file size of the fsfs repository is a little puzzling.
It's less than half of the original bdb repos.
In the official svn documentation is says that the repository size for a
fsfs backend is slightly smaller than bdb.

Everything seems to be ok, all files seems to be there in the fsfs
repository, check outs/commits working ok.
The server is on debian sarge 2.6.x kernel and the filesystem is ext3.

$ du -hsc *
751M fsfsrepos
1.8G bdbrepos
1.8G  cvsdata.dump
cvs2svn Statistics:
Total CVS Files:            122095
Total CVS Revisions:        258046
Total Unique Tags:              95
Total Unique Branches:          10
CVS Repos Size in KB:      1490095
Total SVN Commits:            6512
First Revision Date:    Wed Feb 23 04:33:35 2000
Last Revision Date:     Wed May 17 10:46:42 2006
Is the fsfs repos size normal? The cvs data dump file size matches the bdb
repos size which to me reassures me that nothing was lost.
I just remember that svn uses cheap copies, i.e, hardlinks. I guess that
might explain the fsfs repos size or am I wrong?
Received on Thu May 18 21:58:21 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.