rsync considered superior

[Bill Hacker]

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