[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: Paul Koning <Paul_Koning_at_dell.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:18:45 -0400

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Miller <Miller> writes:

 Eric> Sorry if this has come up before - I could not find a suitable
 Eric> answer online.

 Eric> I'm currently investigating converting some cvs repositories to
 Eric> subversion and have discovered that the svn repositories are
 Eric> taking up a lot more space than the cvs originals.

 Eric> I have run a couple of tests - . A script to do 500 commits of
 Eric> random line of text to a file (fsfs): CVS Repository: 764k SVN
 Eric> Repository: 4.3M

 Eric> . A conversion of one cvs "repository" using cvs2svn: (trunk
 Eric> only, fsfs, ~15,000 revisions) CVS Repository: 109M SVN
 Eric> Repository: 614M

 Eric> Why am I seeing such bloated repositories? Svn is using 5-6x
 Eric> the disk space when I expected to see just the opposite.

But those are tiny samples.

In fsfs, each commit is a single file, but a separate file. That will
consume disk space according to what your file system has for
allocation granularity. If the clustersize is 4k, a one byte change
will take 4k.

In CVS, changes are recorded inside the files so small changes take
less space.

For more realistic change sizes, especially those that touch multiple
files, and for more plausible repository sizes, I don't think there's
an issue.


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 22:19:13 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.