Re: rsync considered superior

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Hello Vincent,
>
> Vincent Stemen wrote:
> > The results are dramatic, with rsync performing hundreds of percent 
> > faster on
> > average while only loading the processor on the client side a little over
> > a third as much as cvsup.  Either the performance claims about cvsup 
> > being
> > faster than rsync are based on theory without real world testing or 
> > cvsup has
> > gotten a lot slower or rsync has gotten a lot faster than in the past.
>
> Thank you for these thorough tests!  We finally have some hard numbers 
> to work with.  I think it is obvious that rsync should be the preferred 
> update mechanism if you want to download the cvs repository.  Cvsup 
> might still be better suited when only downloading the checked out sources.
>
> To state it clearly for everybody:
>
> =========================================================================
>
>   Use rsync to sync your repos!  It is faster and can even be compiled!

To state it even MORE clearly...

" ...so long as you do not give a damn about the extra load you are 
placing on the source server...."

WBH


> =========================================================================
>
> cheers
>   simon

Think about it.

rsync predates CVSUP.

If rsync plus a bit of scripting or 'steering' code was better 'all around'?

- cvsup would never have seen the light of day in the first place.

- NOR been adopted so *very* widely.

- NOR have remained in service for so long on so many projects.

- NOR survived challenges from 'Mercurial' and several other similar tools.

A vast supposition about rsync, backed up by half-vast testing doesn't 
change any of that. Not even with a nicely done write-up.

It is all still one-ended.

Set up the repo you have mirrored as a source server.

Instrument that server's load with 100 simultaneous rsync clients and 
again with 100 simultaneous cvsup clients.

Post the results.

Bill