[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [E-devel] cvs, servers and stuff.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:03:07AM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > i hear that svn is significantly less load for anonymous access -
> > even developer - who has experience with this server-side? can you
> > confirm or deny? i would consider a possible move to svn if we can
> > keep our history from cvs.
> It's not true. SVN requires a lot more overhead (including Apache
> with SVN and DAV modules), uses a BDB backend (you remember your love
> of BDB, right?), and requires DOUBLE the amount of disk space for a
> checkout. Yes, I said double. Furthermore, branching and tagging
> don't really exist for SVN (it uses "copies" which, while they may be
> zero overhead on the server, are murder on the checkout). And last I
> checked, you could not keep your history.
There are tools to move from cvs to svn. E.g. http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/
I've never used one, so I can't vouch for them, but it seems like it
would be a fairly straightforward operation.
I'm still curious if anyone has any stats on actual CPU load for
checkouts from CVS vs. SVN. "More apps involved" doesn't necessarily
equate to "more load". Neither does more disk space used. (But without
stats, I can't do anythign but speculate -- and I don't have the time to
generate such stats right now...)
> CVS is the devil we know. There's really nothing we need it to do
> that it doesn't do. I see no compelling reason to move.
The main thing that SVN has that won me over is the ability to do diffs
without hitting the server. I generally check diffs a LOT before
checking in. With CVS this is a slow pita. I also find svn log more
useful than cvs log. But that's probably just familiarity.
Thats my 2c :)