[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: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:15:18 -0400

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> 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

And neither of those changes would create a 30% performance
degradation. I know there were some changes in 1.6. Just none that
would cause a serious performance drop.

Mark Phippard
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-30 14:16:09 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.