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

Re: cvs vs svn repository size

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:15:05 -0400

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Miller, Eric <Eric.Miller_at_amd.com> wrote:
> Sorry if this has come up before - I could not find a suitable answer
> online.
> I'm currently investigating converting some cvs repositories to
> subversion and have discovered that the svn repositories are taking up a
> lot more space than the cvs originals.
> I have run a couple of tests -
> . A script to do 500 commits of random line of text to a file (fsfs):
> CVS Repository: 764k
> SVN Repository: 4.3M
> . A conversion of one cvs "repository" using cvs2svn:
> (trunk only, fsfs, ~15,000 revisions)
> CVS Repository: 109M
> SVN Repository: 614M
> Why am I seeing such bloated repositories? Svn is using 5-6x the disk
> space when I expected to see just the opposite.
> Is this a case where the changesets are small in comparison to entries
> list?
> Is there anything we can do short of restructuring our repositories?

If you use fsfs you can eat a lot of size just because there are a
couple of files created for every revision. So the smallest file size
comes in to play. Obviously if the size of the commit is bigger, this
is less of an issue, but with a 1-byte change you are still creating
multiple new files that each will be what? 8K 16K 32K?

BDB is more efficient in this case.

Mark Phippard
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-12 22:15:39 CEST

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.