On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Keith Moore <Keith.Moore_at_securency.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lapsap7_at_gmail.com [mailto:lapsap7_at_gmail.com] On Behalf Of STF SVN
>> Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 22:15
>> To: users_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: How to choose between svn & http?
>>
>> As we have two protocoles, svn and http, available for
>> subversion, I'd like to know if there's any performance comparison
>> study on both of them to let us choose the most appropriate one.
>> Anyone has any related article on that?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>
> Perhaps try a google search? http://www.google.com.au/search?q=svn+vs+http&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t
Most of the links are useless, discussing other subject, addressing
far too old of releases, or not doing a straight comparison.
A local comparison is often best, especially when operating over HTTPS
or svn+ssh for security reasons: Because of the continuing storage of
HTTP/HTTPS/svn/SSH passwords in clear-text by the UNIX or Linux
versions of Subversion, I don't trust anything but the svn+ssh public
key based access for public use. Unfortunately, this does cause a
noticeable performance hit.
Performance can also be dominated by the size of the repository, and
the use of "chatty" file storage technologies such as CIFS, which can
seriously slow the checkout of bulky working copies with lots of
files. (I've run into this recently: what took 2.5 minutes to NFS
shares took 25 minutes to CIFS shares. It was embarassing!)
Received on 2010-07-09 01:49:58 CEST