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

Re: Comparison Collabnet and VisualSVN

From: Ari S <sadarjoen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:19:55 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Ivan (and Mark),

> VisualSVN Server is just properly compiled and packaged original
> Subversion. So you shouldn't have difference in performance between
> VisualSVN Server and CollabNet.
> Could you please provide a little bit more information about your
> configuration: server os, client os, IPv4 or IPv4, etc. What operation
> you are used to measure peformance?

Oops, I discovered that I was using the CollabNet version 1.5.4 and
VisualSVN Server based on SVN 1.6.3.
Could that have made such a big difference???

The server is a Pentium-4 2.8 GHz with 2 Gb of RAM, and a 500 + 320 Gb
hard drives.
The clients have the same processor and amount of RAM.
Both the server and the clients run Windows XP-SP 3.
We use IPV4 on a local network.

On the server, we installed the CollabNet server 1.5.4 on port 80, and
the VisualSVN on port 8080.
Both use standard Apache authentication (not Windows).

What we did to compare the performance is a clean check-out of a 143
Mb repository.
As clients we used:
- cmd line client 1.5.4
- Tortoise SVN 1.6.5

So I guess the question now is: has anyone noticed a 30% performance
difference between Subversion 1.5.4 and 1.6.3??

(I tried upgrading the CollabNet 1.5.4 version to 1.6.3 but for some
strange reason failed on the current test machine.
Will try to reinstall both servers on a clean machine)

Best regards


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-30 13:20:58 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.