From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24700 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2004 10:32:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24686 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2004 10:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nef.ens.fr) (129.199.96.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2004 10:32:10 -0000 Received: from quatramaran.ens.fr (quatramaran.ens.fr [129.199.129.64]) by nef.ens.fr (8.12.11/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id i53AWASw021726 ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:32:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by quatramaran.ens.fr (Postfix, from userid 561) id 5572A14571; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:32:10 +0200 (CEST) To: overseers@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Trouble with rsync-access X-Newsgroups: ens.mailing-lists.egcs.general In-Reply-To: <20040601171711.GA11911@coe.casa.cgf.cx> References: <200406011552.i51FqvKp010933@relay.rwth-aachen.de> Organization: Cc: Message-Id: <20040603103210.5572A14571@quatramaran.ens.fr> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:33:00 -0000 From: espie@quatramaran.ens.fr (Marc Espie) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.3.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:32:10 +0200 (CEST) X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00483.txt.bz2 In article <20040601171711.GA11911@coe.casa.cgf.cx> you write: >Hmm. That wording sort of presupposes that rsync uses less resources >than cvs. I suspect that isn't true, i.e., it is not a one-to-one >rsync==good, cvs==bad situation. For instance, if you are just using >rsync to download the repository for a couple of people to use, I >suspect that you are putting more load on the machine than you would be >if you were just using cvs. It's very hard to use more resources than cvs. cvs has never been designed to handle client/server gracefully. It's not in their design spec. Rsync is a bit disk-intensive, since it needs to access all files. Not more disk-intensive than cvs, mind you, unless you use cvs to acces a small part of the repository. I have lots of experience in using rsync and cvs, and I can guarantee that having an rsync'ed repository is very, very useful, and much faster than cvs as soon as you start to use it. Think of all the times you're going to read through the Changelog, look at files history, perform diffs and annotate, especially looking for regressions. In all those case, rsync is a clear win. If you're still concerned about the load, all the cvs-savvy projects (that is, all the BSD) are now using cvsync to mirror repositories to facilitate anonymous access (and speed up read queries). It's very easy to set up, especially compared to the old cvsup alternative (no need for a functioning modula3 installation), real quickly, and designed like an rsync optimized for cvs purposes...