29 messages in com.perforce.perforce-user[p4] Perforce Evaluation
FromSent OnAttachments
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 09:10 
Dave Lewis17 May 2004 10:17 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 10:18 
Pentapati, Sunil17 May 2004 10:48 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 10:54 
Rene R. Medellin17 May 2004 11:00 
Jim Crossley17 May 2004 11:01 
Hoff, Todd17 May 2004 11:07 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 11:13 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 11:15 
Rene R. Medellin17 May 2004 11:26 
Todd Short17 May 2004 11:28 
Tetlow, Gordon17 May 2004 11:37 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 11:38 
Ivey, William17 May 2004 11:59 
Jack Stanley17 May 2004 12:03 
John Long17 May 2004 12:04 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 12:06 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 12:09 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 12:38 
Raja Aluri17 May 2004 13:31 
Ivey, William17 May 2004 14:36 
Robert MacMunn17 May 2004 14:57 
Bennett, Patrick17 May 2004 15:25 
Arnt Gulbrandsen17 May 2004 15:38 
Arnt Gulbrandsen18 May 2004 01:40 
DAVID Foglesong18 May 2004 01:52 
Hoff, Todd18 May 2004 09:56 
Chuck Karish19 May 2004 08:47 
Subject:[p4] Perforce Evaluation
From:Robert MacMunn (Robe@crd.com)
Date:05/17/2004 12:09:13 PM
List:com.perforce.perforce-user

I asked Perforce support about that, they told me not to do that for it puts the depot out of sync with the client spec. I was using that method.

-----Original Message----- From: John Long [mailto:jlong at formfactor.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:05 PM To: Tetlow, Gordon; perforce-user at perforce.com Cc: Pentapati, Sunil; Robert MacMunn; Davidson, Giles; Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation

Wouldn't it be faster to just do and rm -rf and then do a sync -f? That is what I've done in the few cases where I wanted to guarentee a fresh start. This also seems to work very well remotely through a VPN across DSL.

-----Original Message----- From: Tetlow, Gordon [mailto:gtetlow at soe.sony.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:38 AM To: Robert MacMunn; Pentapati, Sunil; Davidson, Giles; Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation That's the slow way to clean your client.

Save your clientspec to a file, delete the clientspec, reload the clientspec from the file, do an rm -rf on the original directory, do a sync.

-gordon

_____

From: perf@perforce.com [mailto:perforce-user-admin at perforce.com] On Behalf Of Robert MacMunn Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:55 AM To: Pentapati, Sunil; Davidson, Giles; Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation

With Clearcase I have not seen many issues using TAS or Samba. I have seen many issues with AIX and with Clearcase Web.

With a dynamic view in Clearcase you just build, no need to sync. With Perforce you have to sync to none, then sync again to download the files.

-----Original Message----- From: Pentapati, Sunil [mailto:spentapati at rsasecurity.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:49 PM To: Robert MacMunn; Davidson, Giles; Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation

I disagree with the fact that sync is a bottleneck with perforce builds compared to ClearCase. For clearcase TAS is a very big bottleneck. The build times increased 5 fold especially with the cobination below. There are several whitepapers discussing this and numerous RFE's submitted to Rational.

-Dynamic Views, TAS, Ant/Java build environment on a Windows box.

One of the problems identified is over-the-wire CIFS/SMB calls of type QUERY_FILE_INFORMATION.(220,000 calls observed in the build environment which was reviewed in tandom with rational)

To overcome these issues many companies had to go the NFS route and the build times dropped significantly, but which inturn has its own security problems combined with Windows.

-Sunil -----Original Message----- From: perforce-user-admin at perforce.com [mailto:perforce-user-admin at perforce.com]On Behalf Of Robert MacMunn Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:19 PM To: Davidson, Giles; Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation With Clearcase there is no user admin. I agree that the developers complain less. The release engineers complain more because Perforce adds to the build times because of the sync.

-----Original Message----- From: Davidson, Giles [mailto:gdavidson at informatica.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:14 PM To: Robert MacMunn; Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation

I'm not sure that I agree - I support around 50 users and after the initial load of the code from the previous system and preparing the users I have spent hardly any time on support for Perforce (probably a less than 5% of my time). User admin is a trivial problem (here at least).

Most importantly the developers like it so they don't try to work against it or around it or moan about it.

Giles. -----Original Message----- From: Robert MacMunn [mailto:RobertMacMunn at crd.com] Sent: 17 May 2004 17:10 To: Rene R. Medellin; Paula Ward; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] Perforce Evaluation We are looking to move to Perforce from Clearcase.

Replying to what you said :

" ClearCase's learning curve isn't so much "long" as it is "steep". You will definitely need a dedicated ClearCase "Administrator" (i.e. to make sure the various services are up, make sure hardware is optimised, etc...)"

I find the same with Perforce. You need to administrate users which you don't have to do with Clearcase. You also need to handle setting up branches in Perforce and help developers. And I find it a pain dealing with optimizing the Linux OS. I also found when I first started with Perforce that the doc didn't have many examples.