Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com>
- Date
- Oct 26, 2006, 16:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0610260929040.2424@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
- In-Reply-To
- <454098EC.8040406@op5.se>
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
>> >> There are _not_ scalability improvements. There may be some slight >> performance improvements, but definitely not scalability. If you have ever >> tried to use git to manage terabytes of data, you will see this becomes >> very clear. And "rebasing with 3-way merge" is not something often used in >> industry anyway if you've followed the more common models for revision >> control within large companies with thousands of engineers. Typically they >> all work off mainline. >> > > Actually, I don't see why git shouldn't be perfectly capable of handling a > repo containing several terabytes of data, provided you don't expect it to > turn up the full history for the project in a couple of seconds and you don't > actually *change* that amount of data in each revision. If you want a vcs > that handles that amount with any kind of speed, I think you'll find rsync > and raw rvs a suitable solution.
actually, there are some real problems in this area. the git pack format can't be larger then 4G, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were other issues with files larger then 4G (these all boil down to 32 bit limits). once these limits are dealt with then you will be right.