[cvsnt] Poor performance on Windows 2003 server
mdonnelly at patientkeeper.com
Wed Apr 18 16:53:52 BST 2007
First off, thanks for the reply.
> Mark - I suspect I'm going to get yelled at for saying this, but
> various people have reported poor performance of CVSNT compared to
> CVS 1.11 over the years. The typical developer response appears to
> be to swear blind that there can't be a problem, rather than to
> investigate. CVSNT does rather more than CVS, and several of the code
> paths in Windows are rather more complex than in Linux, but not all of
> the difference seems to be down to those points.
I can understand that the added functionality that CVSNT brings with it
has additional cost. Is this difference (2.5 X) consistent with what
others have seen, or what you would expect? Also, is there anything I
can to do help investigate whether my site is hitting one of those code
> I assume you're either not running real-time anti-virus or have
> disabled it on the repo and temp filestore? This is well-known for
> crippling performance.
I have already disabled the real-time virus scanning for the repository
directory and all of its subdirectories, and have verified that by
looking at the real-time virus scanner status application to see that
it's not scanning a bunch of files. Sorry for not mentioning that one
More information about the cvsnt