On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > > > > >Because if it's a show stopper, then so will be arch, monotone, or any > > >of our other replacements (they all either store the entire repo on your > > >disk, or have stuff in the working copy), and we will be stuck with cvs > > >until everyone is happy to use up double/whatever disk. > > > > > > > > Actually, having one copy of the entire repository might be cheaper than > > having > > several dozen double checkouts. > > Yes, at some point the double space outruns the cost of the entire repo. > For gcc, the cost of the entire repo is 4.4 gig right now. > For your case, it might be cheaper to rsync the repo (unlike cvs, for > each extra global revision to download, it's going to be 1 new file, and > the old files won't be different. So it's going to be a *very fast* > rsync), and export directly from that.
Since I think this is a very important point, I'm going to contribute a couple of supporting statistics... The CVS repository is about 2.6GB. So, smaller than the subversion repository, but not by enough to bug me. Rsyncing it takes forever. Cvsup updating is very fast, however. I expect rsyncing the SVN repository to be comparably fast (less data transfered, less writing on client side, more reading on server side). A complete CVS checkout is 260MB, or about 10% of the repository. If you've just got the one checkout, the checkouts win. I've got a dozen right now; from what I've been hearing, svk would be the biggest win for me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
