Re: Comparison Collabnet and VisualSVN

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Ari S <sadarjoen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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???
>
> I doubt it.  Most changes in 1.6 were to the client layers, but even
> setting that aside it would be rare for a server version to get
> significantly slower.
>
Mark it is not true. Subversion 1.6 has significant changes in
file-system layer which actively used on the server side:
* Sharing multiple common representations (server)
* FSFS repositories: Support for Memcached (server)

http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.6_releasenotes.html#filesystem-improvements

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2402018
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].