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