[cvsnt] Re: cvsnt Vs cvs : Performance!

Tony Hoyle tmh at nodomain.org
Sat Nov 27 21:20:41 GMT 2004


Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.


nick.minutello at uk.bnpparibas.com wrote:
> Checkout pef was about the same - 2.5 mins for a large module. cvs hardly
> showed up on top - peaking at 6or 7% cpu... cvsnt hit around 20%.
> However, update perf was *wildly* different.
> cvs took 6 sec, cvsnt took 15 sec. However on the cpu stakes, cvs used
> about 4-8% whereas cvsnt hit 75% at some point - and a lot of time at 50%!!

cvsnt is doing more work - cvs does not have access control, or 
directory/file rename mapping, or file-level locking, for example, so 
you'd expect some differences... there's a *lot* of work going on now. 
I get a peak of about 15% for a full update - as long as there's unused 
CPU that's fine... it's there to be used.  cvslockd barely registers 
more than 2-3% most of the time.

Direct comparison isn't easy... I couldn't run the old cvs on any of my 
repositories because it simply couldn't handle them.  Basing it around 
remote access (sourceforge vs cvs.cvsnt.org, to a US client) cvsnt comes 
out just slightly ahead on operations involving large files - because it 
does more in memory - and behind with many small files, as it does a lot 
more work per file.

2.0.58d is faster than the old 2.0.51d, btw. and 2.0.6x is faster still 
in some cases (maybe slower in others).

Tony



More information about the cvsnt mailing list
Download the latest CVSNT, TortosieCVS, WinCVS etc. for Windows 8 etc.
@CVSNT on Twitter   CVSNT on Facebook