Re: BDB vs. FSFS

"Peter Yamamoto" <peter.yamamoto@page44.com> writes:

> Another major issue that FSFS seems to address is backups. Without
> specific info about the DB structure I fear that the size of the backup
> is not dependent on the changed files/data. This is disastrous (>14hour
> backup times) when it comes to this size of a repository.

This happens to be untrue. Berkeley DB databases can be backed up
incrementally by simply stowing away log files as they become unused.
The entire history of your Berkeley DB repository should be
recoverable using nothing but the log files (those log.* files in the
db/ subdirectory).

> FSFS seems to be the only choice. Am I mistaken?

Yes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 21:13:40 2004