On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:45:49PM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Anthony Baxter wrote: > >>>>"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote > Hmm, but how is CVS read-only access different from downloading > a tarball ? (except maybe for the different bandwidth they require > in case of updates) In terms of bandwidth, a CVS update is probably more efficient than a snapshot tarball downloaded over http. In terms of computational intensity, the tarball downloaded over http is more simplistic than a CVS update. A CVS update is also chattier than a snapshot tarball. And lastly, a CVS update is more I/O instensive (lots of file open and closes). If I were to guess, I'd say that the SF folks are experiencing CPU, I/O, and bandwidth problems. If they tell us all to use snapshot tarballs, it eliminates two of their problems (CPU and I/O), allowing them to focus on pure bandwidth issues. As a parallel activity, they can re-vamp their CVS infrastructure (which they've mentioned doing) and distribute the CPU and I/O over multiple resources. Disregard the rest of this if you're not interested in my personal opinion. It is my personal opinion that the sooner py is off sf.net's cvs server the better. Right now, Python co-habitates with other heavy projects on SF. Our CVS performance is negatively impacted by the success of other projects. The degradation is so severe in some cases that you can't even pull a CVS update via pserver (or you have to work with a copy 24 hours old). The cost in efficiency might be more than the dollar cost of hosting the repository elsewhere. -c -- 10:00:00 up 58 days, 23:35, 8 users, load average: 0.11, 0.20, 0.20
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4