Randy McCharles wrote:
> After testing Subversion on A WindowsXP box we are looking at setting up
> a production server.
> The question we have is: what is an optimal hardware configuration for a
> Windows server for 50 developers maintaining 100,000 source files,
> including large binaries?
>
> How high end a box should this be? Dual core? Quad? 2 GB? 4 GB? At what
> point will excess resources sit around unused?
Depending on your backend choice (FSFS/BDB) you might be better off
first asking: what file system? NTFS is notorious for dog-slow
performance with many files. Even if you use BDB, if you make
significant use of locking you'll still take a significant performance
hit for some operations (like 'ls -R' AKA TSVN Repo Browser).
We're OK running a single Xeon 3ghz, 2GB, SCSI 320 Win2003 box to serve
roughly 50 devs, and various repositories with up to 25K files (in
/trunk). We're stuck on Win2003 for now because the machine does more
than serve svn. If I had the choice I'd switch back to Linux (and a
better filesystem) in a heartbeat. For some locking tests I found my
P2-400 512MB IDE test box was 2x faster than the Win2003 server, using
copies of the same svn repo.
-Nathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 16 21:32:43 2007