Drako compares IC Manage, Subversion DesignSync, ClioSoft, CVS

( ESNUG 539 Item 6 ) -------------------------------------------- [05/08/14]

Subject: Drako compares IC Manage, Subversion, DesignSync, ClioSoft, CVS
From: [ Dean Drako of IC Manage ]

Hi, John,

As a starting point, I have put together a first chart of what the primary 
DM systems in EDA offer "out-of-the-box" according to the 15 feature and 
function metrics previously defined.  This chart is snapshot of the most 
recent data we have available based on published data and word-of-mouth.  

Software products and features can change quickly, and I encourage the other
vendors and the user community to provide updates and modifications.

I highlighted IC Manage GDP and Subversion because both use a change-based
DM architecture.

	Design Management Systems	IC Manage GDP	Subversion (SVN)	Dassault DesignSync	ClioSoft SOS	CVS
	Type	Commercial	Open Source	Commercial	Commercial	Open Source
1	Revision management - DM architecture	Change-based approach	Change-based approach	Individual file-based approach	Individual file-based approach	Individual file-based approach
2	Configuration management - Release Assembly	Allows implicit labels linked to change numbers	Allows implicit labels linked to change numbers	Tag names attached to individual files	Tag names attached to individual files	Tag names attached to individual files
2	Configuration management - Prior configuration access	Can trace back to any prior release state or version	Can trace back to any prior release state or version	Limited tracing through "Modules" because of version abstraction	Tracing by tag - name. If tage names are reused traceablility is lost	Tracing by tag - name. If tage names are reused traceablility is lost
3	Branching - architecture	Inter-file branching. Branch history tracking	Inter-file branching	Version-tree branching	Version-tree branching	Version-tree branching
3	Branching - history tracing	Automatically tracks history of all branching operations	Basic history tracking in destination file	Merge history must be tracked manually	Merge history must be tracked manually	Merge history must be tracked manually
4	Multi-site performance	Streaming TCP. 10 X speed	HTTP or TCP/IP 1.5-3X speed	HTTP. 1X	TCP/IP 1.5X	TCP/IP 1X
5	Bug dependency management - bug tracker integration	Tight bi-directional integration with JIRA bug tracker. Have bug tracking gateway API	3rd party uni-directional add-ons	Uni-directional link to ProjectSync	Uni-drectional link to Bugzilla, Trac, DevTrack	3rd party uni-directional add-ons
5	Bug dependency management - bug tracing	Multi-level bug tracing between original IP/module and all derivatives	3rd party add-ons	Single-level tracing	Single-level tracing	Not supported
5	Bug dependency management - fix propagation	Multi-level fix propagation	Single-level propagation if branches are used	Single-level propagation if branches are used	Single-level propagation if branches are used	Single-level propagation if branches are used
6	IP reuse - Single IP repository	Single repository scales to 1000's of users and millions of concurrent connections	Scaling managed by multiple repositories	Multiple repositories, often one per project	Multiple repositories, often one per project	Multiple repositories, often one per project
6	IP reuse - Workflow	Global IP catalog with: object / property / checklist filtering: automated dependency tracing & fix propagation, sever & client side action / authentication triggers.	No	ProjectSync	Web catalog	No
7	Project management and status reporting	Roll-up reports and trend analysis at top/design level. Can drill down to IP level	No support. User builds custom reporting interface	Module-based reporting	Some support. User builds custom reporting interface	No support. User builds custom reporting interface
8	Check-list driven acceptance flow	Checklists are integrated with DM system. Property groupings can be set to create checklist-driven flows	No	ProjectSync capability	No	No
9	Link/Import IP & design data from other DM systems	Import or link data from other systems (Subversion, ClearCase, Perforce, DesignSync), using consistent meta-data source	No	Supports Subversion and ClearCase	No	No
10	Properties encapsulated in IP	Property data tied to design module: can enter, trigger, trace, select, report and manage property data with full hierarchical inheritance	Does not support IP property encapsulation	Limited attribute support in ProjectSync	Limited attribute support in web-interface	Does not support IP property encapsulation
11	Global data consistency / local caching	Local caches & edge servers	Local caching	Uses local caches or mirrors. Mirrors can lead to synchronization failures	Local caching	Local caching
12	Metadata consistency / reliablity	Has single metadata repository for both IP and project levels	Has single metadata repository	Distributes metadata into users' workspaces which makes queries difficult / slow	Distributes metadata into users' workspaces which makes queries difficult / slow	Distributes metadata into users' workspaces which makes queries difficult / slow
13	Atomic transactions	Atomic transactional architecture	Atomic transactional architecture	"Atomic behavior" overlayed on non-atomic transactional architecture	"Atomic behavior" overlayed on non-atomic transactional architecture	Individual file-based, with no concept of atomic check-in
14	R&D despite remote network disruptions	Allows syncing to most recent available version, and design development / edits. (GDP SmartEdge)	Requires manual offline reconcilation	Requires manual offline reconcilation	Requires manual offline reconcilation	Requires manual offline reconcilation
15	Granular Security	Server-based rules to control access for users, groups, hosts, networks or proxies, with individual file-level granularity. Supports none, list, read, open, write, super levels of privileges. Operating system agnostic. Role-based security with delegation	Path-based authorization	Project / directory based granularity	Project / directory based granularity	Project / directory based granularity


Design and IP Management systems tend to be very "sticky", so picking the 
right one can have a major impact for years to come.

Companies can use this list as a starting point to assess their own feature
and function priorities, and then to know exactly what to benchmark to 
validate vendor claims.

    - Dean Drako
      IC Manage                                  Campbell, CA

        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----    ----

Related Articles

    SCOOP! - Dean Drako's design and IP management survey Infographic
    Nitty-gritty details to that design and IP survey Infographic
    What design and verification engineers want on global projects
    15 gotchas found in Design and IP data management tools (part I)
    15 gotchas found in Design and IP data management tools (part II)
    Dean Drako on IC Manage, Subversion, DesignSync, ClioSoft, CVS

Join Index Next->Item

"Relax. This is a discussion. Anything said here is just one engineer's opinion. Email in your dissenting letter and it'll be published, too."
This Web Site Is Modified Every 2-3 Days
Copyright 1991-2024 John Cooley. All Rights Reserved.
| Contact John Cooley | Webmaster | Legal | Feedback Form |


   !!!     "It's not a BUG,
  /o o\  /  it's a FEATURE!"
 (  >  )
  \ - / 
  _] [_     (jcooley 1991)