Re: Does anyone have any benchmarks against CVS?

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 11, 2007, 09:47 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706111042110.4059@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <86odjmg7ty.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>

Hi,

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> linux@horizon.com writes:
> 
> > It seems to be common knowledge that git is a heck of a lot faster than
> > CVS at most operations, but I'd like to do a little evangelizing and
> > I can't seem to find a benchmark to support that claim.
> >
> > Am I just blind?
> >
> > I could find a code base and measure myself, but perhaps someone who's
> > been hacking on CVS converters already has a reasonable code base
> > in both forms that could be used for testing?
> 
> CVS and git do completely different things (which is one of the main
> points of git).  git tends to do its own things pretty fast, CVS tends
> to its things more leasurely and with higher network impact.
> Benchmarking is not really useful since both systems do different
> things.

I disagree. For quite some time (pre 2005), I used CVS to track some directories, where the "server" was a directory on the same machine.

This is exactly the same workflow as I do now with Git. So I will try to come up with a sensible test this afternoon (If I can get at a copy of QEmu's cvsroot, I'll try that) where I compare CVS and Git, both of which have the repository already set up.

Okay, it is not completely fair, since Git _will_ blow CVS away, but linux-at-horizon asked for it.

Sidenote: It was always a hassle to set up the initial version with CVS. 
Funnily enough, the "CVS done right" SCM has the _same_ issue.

I even presented Git to an svn user last week (not his fault, really, he was more than willing to try Git), and he was surprised that you could _continue_ working in the _same_ working directory as before, after git-init...

Ciao, Dscho