Stefan Krüger wrote:
>  > [...]
> 
>> anoncvs is a particularly bad case because, to get even moderate
>> performance given the number of users we have, it needs a huge amount
>> of memory so the whole repository fits in buffer cache. This costs
>> bucks. (There really is no other way to do it -- CVS thrashes on i/o
>> very badly, so no real disk can possibly handle 100 simultaneous
>> checkouts, and we deal with that and worse all the time.)
> 
>  > [...]
> 
> may I ask why we still use cvs to distribute the source and repository 
> files? I mean cvs may be fine for developing software, but for anything 
> else? FreeBSD already uses cvsup (I know, it's based on modula3 and not 
> portable) and cvsync sounds also very nice (though it still doesn't 
> support fetching plain source files :-(). Or even rsync?!
> 
> regards,
> SK

I don't do cvs to anoncvs, but I rsync the whole thing and
do the CVS only from my own server to a number of clients.
In fewer words: I have a personal anoncvs mirror. You may
ask why. Well, I like to run "cvs log" for example...

Would it require less resources for anoncvs if it was
only available through cvsup/cvsync/whatever and rsync?

I wouldn't mind if that was the case.

Teemu

-- 
teemu@rinta-aho.org -+- http://www.rinta-aho.org