Hello Vincent,
Vincent Stemen wrote:
The results are dramatic, with rsync performing hundreds of percent faster on
average while only loading the processor on the client side a little over
a third as much as cvsup. Either the performance claims about cvsup being
faster than rsync are based on
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Hello Vincent,
Vincent Stemen wrote:
The results are dramatic, with rsync performing hundreds of percent
faster on
average while only loading the processor on the client side a little over
a third as much as cvsup. Either the performance claims about cvsup
Bill Hacker wrote:
To state it clearly for everybody:
=
Use rsync to sync your repos! It is faster and can even be compiled!
To state it even MORE clearly...
...so long as you do not give a damn about the extra load
Simon 'corecode' Schubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you for these thorough tests! We finally have some hard numbers to
work with. I think it is obvious that rsync should be the preferred
update mechanism if you want to download the cvs repository.
To download, yes, to update, that's not
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
*snip*
Simon,
Your command of the *language* is superb.
But it isn't about debating skills.
Test 100 simultaneous connections.
Or Not.
IDGASEW
Bill
Guys, I just don't care about minor differences in client or server
cpu use, or bandwidth.
I think the only real issue here is the one Rahul brought up which is,
in fact, the original reason why cvsup was written in the first place,
so cvs tagging wouldn't require a complete
