[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More on the port tree
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: More on the port tree
- From: "Adam Thompson, MCNE, MCSE" <athompso_(_at_)_commerced_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:19:08 -0600
- Cc: Sameh Ghane <sameh_(_at_)_fr_(_dot_)_clara_(_dot_)_net>, xmasson <xmasson_(_at_)_assemblee-nationale_(_dot_)_fr>
- Organization: Commerce Design Inc.
- Reply-to: athompso_(_at_)_commerced_(_dot_)_com
Sameh Ghane wrote:
> > Also the documentation states that is is possible to enable
> > compression on the line during a cvs session but another place states
> > that its should not be done when SSH is used because SSH already does
> > that ? What's the truth because to me when I look at the cvs output it
> > looks like there is a lot of overhead. I expected SSH to retrieve
> > compressed chunks of source and compare them to the local srcs, but
> > it seems to do comparisons file by file. I am surely wrong on this I
> > would just like to know ;)
> From the same page:
> "Do not be tempted to turn on compression since CVS already compresses."
> SSH can compress, but in this case, we use CVS compression.
I know CVS can do compression, but it doesn't do it by default, does it? By that
I mean that I see speedups of an order of magnitude when I add "-z 9" to the cvs
If CVS isn't compressing on any given connection, what's wrong with using SSH
compression for that connection? Presumably it's the same CPU compressing the
same data, anyway...
I don't know enough about CVS to answer this: is there some inherent advantage to
having CVS compress the data?
Adam Thompson, MCNE, MCSE, CWT, A+
Vice-President / Chief Technology Officer, Commerce Design Inc.
tel: (204) 942-1648, fax: (204) 989-8080, cell: (204) 782-6198