Re: Using up double diskspace for working copies (Was Re: Detailsfor svn test repository)

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:08 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > 
> > >    
> > > 
> > > >Because if it's a show stopper, then so will be arch, monotone, or any
> > > >of our other replacements (they all either store the entire repo on your
> > > >disk, or have stuff in the working copy), and we will be stuck with cvs
> > > >until everyone is happy to use up double/whatever disk.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > Actually, having one copy of the entire repository might be cheaper than 
> > > having
> > > several dozen double checkouts.
> > 
> > Yes, at some point the double space outruns the cost of the entire repo.
> > For gcc, the cost of the entire repo is 4.4 gig right now.
> > For your case, it might be cheaper to rsync the repo (unlike cvs, for
> > each extra global revision to download, it's going to be 1 new file, and
> > the old files won't be different. So it's going to be a *very fast*
> > rsync), and export directly from that.
> 
> Since I think this is a very important point, I'm going to contribute a
> couple of supporting statistics...
> 
> The CVS repository is about 2.6GB. 

3200989 cvsfiles

oh, wait, that includes wwwdocs and whatnot, sorry.

> A complete CVS checkout is 260MB, or about 10% of the repository.  If
> you've just got the one checkout, the checkouts win.  I've got a dozen
> right now; from what I've been hearing, svk would be the biggest win
> for me.
> 
You can't mix svn and svk commits against the same repo. It confuses svk
(not svn).

You can use svk readonly, of course.