We have a ColdFusion project in our repository that has a 3 to 1 ratio of files to directories (bad design, but no need to go there). With about 2000+ directories, the Mac OS X developers quickly execute checkouts and all other functions. The Windows developers literally crawl on checkout and all other functions (enough to make some of them seriously consider a Mac). We've found that turning off the fast indexing (as someone else mentioned) was a big help, but the killer is anti-virus. With Subversion having two copies of every repository file in the working copy that is constantly changing, anti-virus sucks up the processor(s) and IO really fast checking all of those files. We have notice that Norton can be configured to be less aggressive than Mcaffe can. But a good configuration of the anti-virus is the biggest win that can happen.
Maybe it's time that the Subversion stewards and committers take this up with the anti-virus manufacturers and figure out a way to improve this without sacrificing the safety of Windows based PC's.
Johnathan
>>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM, in message
<45C8D9B6.9010900@atlantico.com.br>, Joaquim Oliveira
<joaquim.oliveira@atlantico.com.br> 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.
> 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
>
> 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,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Feb 7 15:40:17 2007