13 messages in com.perforce.perforce-user[p4] cdsp4 vs Synchronicity| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Eric D. Blom | 31 Jul 2003 09:38 | |
| Cris Vulpe | 31 Jul 2003 16:58 | |
| Simon De Groot | 01 Aug 2003 00:50 | |
| Eric D. Blom | 01 Aug 2003 09:34 | |
| Eric D. Blom | 01 Aug 2003 09:38 | |
| Simon De Groot | 04 Aug 2003 00:08 | |
| Eric D. Blom | 04 Aug 2003 08:20 | |
| Simon De Groot | 04 Aug 2003 23:59 | |
| Eric D. Blom | 05 Aug 2003 08:03 | |
| Cris Vulpe | 14 Nov 2003 00:41 | |
| Tony Sweeney | 14 Nov 2003 05:57 | |
| Bob Cook | 14 Nov 2003 07:32 | |
| Wright, Richard | 14 Nov 2003 09:15 |
| Subject: | [p4] cdsp4 vs Synchronicity |
|---|---|
| From: | Eric D. Blom (eb...@cypress.com) |
| Date: | 08/01/2003 09:34:08 AM |
| List: | com.perforce.perforce-user |
Simon De Groot wrote:
A few quick comments on this issue, since we're using both Synchronicity (design data) and Perforce (documentation, software, so no cdsp4 atm) here:
Storage capacity:
I'm not sure about the storage efficiency server-side, one compared to the other. However I would like to note that if x designers are working on the same dataset, they will all require to sync all files into their workspace. Synchronicity's DesignSync is able to make use of Unix/Linux's symbolic links in combination with the cache. This way, actual files will only be in workspace if they're checked out (or opened for edit in P4 terms). This saves a considerable amount of storage capacity.
I'm struggling to understand the benefits of the link model other than a reduction in disk space and work space update time. The disadvantage I see is that an engineer's work space can change at any time. That seems like a huge disadvantage and I'm wondering how it works in practice. I can't imagine working on a problem, say a verification task, while the source for my netlist is changing out from under me.
Eric