Re: Performance of CVS version SVN

[Peter Toft]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Michael Haggerty wrote:

> Peter Toft wrote:
> > I just made benchmarks of CVS 1.12.12 versus svn 1.1.3 (r12730)
> > for "update to tag/date/current" operations for a 2500 files project with 
> > 6 years timespan in CVS. Approx 62 MB.
> > 
> > I found that CVS always outperforms Subversion typically with 2-3x
> > 
> > Can anyone acknowledge that performance? Any similar experiments.
> > 
> > It must be noted that the SVN archive was made with cvs2svn - using the 
> > CVS project.
> > 
> > I will publish my results when I have a bit more time...
> 
> This is not terribly surprising; svn is not especially fast at
> checkout/update operations.  At the recent SVN summit there was a lot of
> talk about how to improve the situation by using a different repository
> storage format.  Part, though probably not most, of the extra cost is
> writing the second copy of the pristine text in the working copy.
> 
> But, when you publish the results, I would like to suggest the following:
> 
> - Indicate which SVN filesystem you used (bdb vs. fsfs).  They differ
> considerably in performance.

I have fsfs - bad or good?
That came from cvs2svn
 
> - Indicate what access method you used (file://, svn://, svn+ssh://,
> http://, https://).  They differ considerably in performance.

I have to use svn+ssh://, but I have also make localhost measurements 
using file://

> - To be fair, include a timing comparison of "cvs tag" vs "svn tag" :-)

Good idea - any other operations also?

> Michael
> 

Best

Peter Toft, Ph.D. address@hidden http://petertoft.dk