Team Foundation Server 2010 基本问题 - 系统资源使用情况？
伙计们/姑娘们，我有一个真正的基本 Team Foundation Server 2010 问题。对于那些使用过 tfs 2010 的人来说，它比 tfs2008 轻量很多吗？我记得在工作时一台机器上安装了 TFS 2008 所需的所有部件。我记得安装起来很痛苦（我知道 2010 年应该会好得多）我们想稍微尝试一下，看看它是否满足我们的需求。好吧，它使那台机器急刹车了。我需要一个家庭源代码控制存储库，我想为什么不直接安装 tfs 2010，这样我就可以熟悉它，也许将来我可以更好地向我的组织推销，并最终让他们摆脱 Source Safe但我担心的是我家里只有一台服务器（假设我已经安装了 SQL Server）并且不想仅仅为了这个目的购买一台机器。我也想更熟悉 CI。
无论如何，如果团队规模太大，我只会使用 subversion，但如果可能的话，我想使用 TFS。任何帮助将不胜感激。
谢谢，
恩凯奇
Guys / Gals i have a real basic Team Foundation Server 2010 question. For those of you who have played around with tfs 2010 is it a lot more light weight than tfs2008 is? I remember installing all the pieces needed for TFS 2008 one one machine at work. I remember it being a pain to install (i know 2010 is supposed to be much better) We wanted to play around with it a little bit to see if it met our needs. Well it brought that machine to a screeching halt. I'm needing a source control repository for home and i thought why not just install tfs 2010 so i can get familiar with it and maybe in the future i can make a better sell to my organization and FINALLY get them to move off of Source Safe but my concern is i only have one server at home (granted i already have SQL Server installed) and don't want to buy a machine just for this purpose. I'd also like to get more familiar with CI too.
Anyways, if team is going to be to heavy i'll just use subversion but i'd like to use TFS if possible. Any help would be appreciated.
thanks,
Ncage
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
在此测试中，TFS 2010 使用与 TFS 2008 大致相同的资源，做 2008 年所做的事情。请记住，TFS 2010 中有大量新功能，并且总体上它会使用更多资源，因为您使用它的次数更多（当然，前提是您使用这些功能）。
与 VSS 相比，这是一个很难回答的问题，因为这取决于您做什么。
有很多因素会导致每次安装及其资源使用情况相差很大。如果您严格从 TFS 2008 更改为 TFS 2010 进行源代码控制，那么我发现服务器性能和 CPU 几乎没有什么区别，尽管 SQL 框上的磁盘活动大幅下降，我相信他们做了一些重大改进数据库结构。
话虽这么说，它不是野兽。对于几千个服务器和良好的备份策略，您的 TFS 服务器将毫不费力地处理一百多个开发人员，每天签入 1-10 次。请记住，如果您有 MSDN 订阅，则每个订阅都包含一个 TFS 服务器许可证和 CAL。
至于你的家庭服务器，只要是一台像样的机器，运行应该没有问题。我在这里有一台测试机，价格不到 600 美元，2 个驱动器，四核，4GB，运行 Server 2008 R2 和 TFS 2010（最新测试版）......除了构建之外，它几乎没有触及 CPU/磁盘。
In testing here, TFS 2010 uses about the same resource-wise as TFS 2008 did, doing what 2008 did. Keep in mind that there's tons of new functionality in TFS 2010 and it'll use more resources overall simply because you're using it more (only if you use those features, of course).
It's a hard question to answer compared to VSS because it depends what you do.
There are lots of factors that make each install and it's resource usage vary widely. If you're looking at it from changing TFS 2008 to TFS 2010 strictly for source control then I've seen little difference in server performance and CPU, though disk activity went way down on the SQL box, I believe they made some major improvements to the database structure.
All that being said, it's not a beast. For a few thousand on a server and a good backup strategy, your TFS server will handle over a hundred developers with 1-10 check-ins a day no sweat. Remember that if you have MSDN subscriptions, each one includes a TFS Server License and CAL.
As for your home server, as long as it's a decent machine, it should run it no problem. I had a test machine here for under $600, 2 Drives, quad core, 4GB running Server 2008 R2 and TFS 2010 (latest beta)...it barely touched the CPU/disk except when doing a build.
纯粹从内存的角度来看，如果您在单个机器上运行完整的设置，似乎 2GB 以下的任何东西都不会削减它。
Nick 指出 4GB，如果您在同一台机器上运行所有功能，我想说您肯定需要 4GB。
上周四，我刚刚在企业 HyperV Win 2008 R2 映像上处理了这个问题，并将内存调至 2GB（我公司的库存配置，除非要求更多），这确实很困难。我请求增加到 4GB，然后重新启动，看起来好多了。现在内存使用率可能保持在 60% 左右。
不过，尼克的回答很好。
Purely from a memory standpoint, it seems like anything under 2GB will not cut it if you run the full setup on a single box.
Nick pointed out 4GB and that is what I would say you definitely need if you run all features on the same box.
I just dealt with this last Thursday on a corporate HyperV Win 2008 R2 image and with the memory dialed to 2GB (stock config at my company unless more is requested), it was really struggling. I requested a bump to 4GB, rebooted, and it seems much better. Probably sticks around 60% memory usage now.
Good answer by Nick, though.