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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk