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

Re: Poor performance in windows. Switching back to CVS

From: John Allen <john.allen_at_dublinux.net>
Date: 2007-02-07 14:29:02 CET

Joaquim Oliveira wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Our team tried svn for 4 months, but we're switching back to CVS due
> to performance problems. Our project is a huge java one: its structure
> has 10323 files and 2420 directories (117 MB). We made some tests
> using a variety of tools:
> - Eclipse 3.2 + Subclipse 1.1.9
> - Eclipse 3.2 + Subversive 1.0.0 rc4
> - Tortoise svn 1.4.1-7992
> - Eclipse 3.2 + internal CVS support
> - Tortoise CVS 1.8.30
>
> SVN access was made using svn:// protocol. CVS was faster in all
> situations. Most of then, it is twice faster. For example, an update
> in working copy root folder was about 20% faster in CVS.
Times please. Also when you are updating how many files have changed
between the revision
you have locally, and the head on the repository?

If you do and svn update, followed immediately by another svn update
does it still take ages?

Also I assume you are not checking out the entire repository, just the
trunk.
> We noticed that SVN creates more administrative files and directories
> than CVS. The checkout size is:
> - CVS: 24849 files, 4841 folders. Disk usage: 164 MB
> - SVN: 27450 files, 22319 folders (!). Disk usage: 261 MB
>
This is to be exepcted, as svn provides features that cvs does not, and
requires these extra
administrative files to do so.
> I searched the mail list archives, but couldn't find a solution for
> this. I found something about "the NTFS file system does not perform
> well when you have a large number of small files", but we need to
> develop in Windows, so adopting Linux/Ext3 is not an option. I've
> already seen these messages:
> - http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-04/1557.shtml
> -http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-04/1695.shtml
>
> We already tried disabling anti-virus software and upgrading to the
> latest version of the server (1.4.x) and plugins, but nothing worked.
> Developers complain a lot about this and, although SVN features are
> really better, a fast development environment is a must to our team.
>
> Is there any way to improve SVN performance? What are the most common
> bottlenecks?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>

-- 
John Allen                          mailto:john.allen@codemountain.net
CodeMountain                        http://www.codemountain.net
Ubuntu 6.10, kernel 2.6.17-10-generic
up 12 days, 21:21, 16 users,  load average: 0.37, 0.20, 0.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Feb 7 14:29:56 2007

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.