Re: Trouble with rsync-access

[espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr (Marc Espie)]

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...