Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I've got some colleagues with a rather large Subversion repository
> whose trunk includes over 10,000 files and over 500 Meg of actual
> content for various reasons. What we're finding is that checking it
> out it on a Windows client to a local hard drive takes perhaps 3
> minutes. Downloading it to a mounted Windows (CIFS) share takes
> roughly half an hour.
What's the server on the CIFS side? If it is Linux/samba, it may be the
overhead of making a case sensitive filesystem look case insensitive (consider
what has to happen when you create a new file in a large directory and have to
check if the name already exists).
> * Is this poor CIFS performance normal for large repositories being
> checked out?
I doesn't sound normal to me.
> * How bad are the risks of screwing up my checkouts if I use a
> post-commit to keep a central working copy updated, and have people
> simply copy that over instead of checking out the trunk directly?
Copying a checked out directory isn't bad by itself, but you can't have
something modifying the source during the copy - which sounds likely to happen.
> My
> concerin is that the checkout process isn't really designed for that,
> and may fail to do a checkout in a clean and atomic state, and the
> checked out copy may therefore be corrupted by being in the midst of
> an update operation.
Yes, I'd expect things to break. Does everyone really need a complete copy or
could you break it into components that each person needs to update? Or can
everyone just check out once (or copy a workspace that doesn't update
automatically while people are working) and subsequently do updates - or are
they just as bad?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
Received on 2010-07-13 14:50:59 CEST