On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 08:00 +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
> Hi, Loren,
>
> Did you try "svnadmin pack" on the repositories?
svnadmin pack is a new feature of 1.6.x. As I stated in my email, I am
using 1.5.x. Would pack reduce space on a freshly loaded repository?
I'd assume it would pack it tightly on a load operation.
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus Schaber
>
> ___________________________
> We software Automation.
>
> 3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH
> Markus Schaber | Developer
> Memminger Str. 151 | 87439 Kempten | Germany | Tel. +49-831-54031-0 | Fax +49-831-54031-50
>
> Email: m.schaber@3s-software.com | Web: http://www.3s-software.com
> CoDeSys internet forum: http://forum.3s-software.com
> Download CoDeSys sample projects: http://www.3s-software.com/index.shtml?sample_projects
>
> Managing Directors: Dipl.Inf. Dieter Hess, Dipl.Inf. Manfred Werner | Trade register: Kempten HRB 6186 | Tax ID No.: DE 167014915
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Loren M. Lang [mailto:lorenl_at_north-winds.org]
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2011 02:40
> > An: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Betreff: Size of Subversion repository
> >
> > We have been using Subversion 1.4.x for quite some time and just earlier
> > this year, we upgraded to 1.5.x. Our repository is still the same as we
> > did no dump/load between upgrades. I was curious to see what kind of
> > space savings we might have if we did. Our original repository is fsfs
> > and was created under 1.4.x as far as I remember. The format file says
> > 3 so I might have made it with 1.3.x. The format for the new repo is 5.
> > Here are the numbers for two tests I did, one with fsfs and one with bdb.
> >
> > 737M svn-original
> > 690M svn-fsfs
> > 903M svn-bdb
> > 2.3G total
> >
> > Are these numbers typical? And why is BDB so significantly larger? Is
> > there any real benefit to it nowadays? Our server set-up is all access
> > must be through the apache user via mod_dav_svn.
>
Received on 2011-05-06 00:32:27 CEST