[boost] Re: Initial Subversion/RapidSVN experience

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-06 04:29:14

Beman Dawes wrote:

> [...]
> My disk usage:
> 
> SVN size 127 MB, size on disk 293 MB, files 52,259, directories 8,799.
> CVS size  61 MB, size on disk  96 MB, files 14,066, directories 1,493.
> 
> While the disk difference is a bit unsettling, it probably isn't a 
> showstopper for most people. I was particularly concerned with volume of 
> data over the net, because if too large it would be a showstopper for 
> those with dial-up connections.

Like others have pointed out, SVN caches the latest update locally,
which makes diffing your local changes very easy.  That's why it's
almost exactly twice the size of CVS.  I think it's a reasonably
small price to pay, not to mention a good tradeoff to reduce network
bandwidth, since disk capacity is almost always cheaper than bandwidth.
In fact, local caching is necessary to achieve the 2-way diff, which
is really the major win.  The fact that you get a fast local history
is just a nice side effect that I think indicates an elegant design.

Dave