On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:20:33PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > > I thought I recalled when svnrdump was first created that there were some > > timing comparisons made with svnsync that showed it to be faster at doing > a > > full dump/sync of a remote repository. When I test via HTTP: > > > > svnrdump dump http://server/repos | svnadmin load repos > > > > And compare this to an equivalent svnsync, I find that the times it takes > to > > do this is essentially the same. I then compared the HTTP access logs of > > the server and see that the two commands produce identical logs, so > > obviously there are not going to be big performance differences. > > > > Am I missing something? I realize that svnrdump still fulfills a need, > so I > > am not questioning the value of the tool. Just questioning whether my > > results make sense. As I see it, for this specific scenario, someone > would > > be better off to still simply use svnsync for this purpose. > > Performance concerns may have been related to the use case of importing > Subversion history into git. > It is certainly faster to create a dump file over the network, rather > than syncing the repository and creating a dump files from that in a > second step. > > Not sure if that is what people were talking about though. > Do you have a link to related discussion in the archives? > I could just be basing it on the original proposal. Maybe that planted the seed with me that it was going to be faster: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-07/0154.shtml When I mentioned it to Mike this AM, he said he thought it used the same ra_replay as svnsync so should perform similar. It looks like that is the case. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
