Re: The CVS load problem (was Elliot's subjectless post)

Haukur Hreinsson wrote:

> I suppose it boils down to CPU/RAM versus bandwidth. I imagine cvs -z3
> update is about as bandwidth-efficient as you can get, but at a great
> cost in other resources.

Actually, seeing as how cvs update sessions here seem to always be 50%
sending data and 50% receive, this can't be terribly efficient.  :)

Jesse D. Sightler

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]