Re: rsync vs. cvsup benchmarks

[Garance A Drosihn <drosih@xxxxxxx>]

At 4:38 PM -0600 1/30/08, Vincent Stemen wrote:
> That's a good point.  It is possible that cvsup would fair better with
> a matching sup directory.  I actually forgot about cvsup keeping that
> separate state directory when I ran the benchmarks.  However, from my
> viewpoint that does not invalidate the test results or convince me that
> there is any reason I would want to use cvsup for mirroring because of
> several reasons.


>   2 Rsync did not have the benefit of a local state directory either, so
>     it was a one on one fair comparison.  Based on all the cvsup claims,
>     I would have expected it to at least come close to matching rsync's
>     performance.  Then I would expect a higher possibility of it being
>     faster than rsync with the state directory available.

Geez.  Just use rsync if you want to use it.
       But the above reasoning is absurd.

"CVSUP must live up to it's performance claims, even though I refuse to
run CVSUP the way it is designed to run".

"Rsync does not use this method to optimize its performance, so I refuse
to let CVSUP use this method to optimize its performance.  And look,
CVSUP is slower than rsync as long as I make sure cvsup cannot use the
performance enhancements which were designed into it!"

Just use rsync, and shut up about it already.  No one is asking you to
use cvsup.  But stop trying to defend a obviously incomplete benchmark
by pulling out such bizarre reasoning.  If you don't want to do a real
benchmark, then just don't bother doing one.  I can't blame you for that,
as I also don't want to do the amount of work it would take to do a
really useful benchmark.

--
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu