The context of your question is unclear, but I would suggest using git-svn instead of Subversion. The git-svn bridge gives you an interface and user experience like Git, while retaining Subversion as the official repository. Basically, you start by running git svn cloneURL, which creates a local Git repository that contains the entire repository history, with some Subversion metadata so that you can resynchronize later. The Subversion repository is treated by Git as a special kind of remote repository. Git-svn has multiple advantages over the usual Subversion workflow:
Git is simply a more powerful tool than Subversion.
Operations that Subversion would normally query the server for, such as svn log, happen locally. git log is much faster than svn log. (If you want the output to look like svn log, then run git svn log instead.)
You have the option to make local Git branches, commit to them, rewrite history in them, etc., before pushing them into the remote Subversion repository.
Road warriors can work offline except when syncing.
The main caveats are:
Git is more difficult to learn than Subversion.
The multiple steps to commit (git commit -a followed by git svn dcommit) can be confusing to some users.
Subversion lets you check out portions of a repository, whereas Git operations always work on the entire repository. If your Subversion repository has per-directory access control, then git-svn won't work well.
A very general commercial solution is a product offering from Riverbed Technology. To my understanding, it's deployed at the data center and at remote site offices and watches all network traffic, on which it calculates checksums at a block-by-block (?) level.
In the data-center-outbound case (e.g., a central Subversion server), when it sees outbound traffic that matches a previous checksum, it sends just the checksum over the WAN, which the remote office's device looks up, decompresses, and transmits the corresponding data block on its LAN. I've heard of this used in multiple companies to improve site office network speeds.
The context of your question is unclear, but I would suggest using git-svn instead of Subversion. The git-svn bridge gives you an interface and user experience like Git, while retaining Subversion as the official repository. Basically, you start by running
git svn clone
URL, which creates a local Git repository that contains the entire repository history, with some Subversion metadata so that you can resynchronize later. The Subversion repository is treated by Git as a special kind of remote repository. Git-svn has multiple advantages over the usual Subversion workflow:svn log
, happen locally.git log
is much faster thansvn log
. (If you want the output to look likesvn log
, then rungit svn log
instead.)The main caveats are:
git commit -a
followed bygit svn dcommit
) can be confusing to some users.I have found interesting info http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21217781
Does anyone tried run subversion via ibm proxy server?
A very general commercial solution is a product offering from Riverbed Technology. To my understanding, it's deployed at the data center and at remote site offices and watches all network traffic, on which it calculates checksums at a block-by-block (?) level.
In the data-center-outbound case (e.g., a central Subversion server), when it sees outbound traffic that matches a previous checksum, it sends just the checksum over the WAN, which the remote office's device looks up, decompresses, and transmits the corresponding data block on its LAN. I've heard of this used in multiple companies to improve site office network speeds.
You can try to use a HTTP Cache like Squid to cache the HTTP requests.