Concerning Re: FSFS performance on NAS/NFS
Nathan Kidd wrote on 9 Mar 2007, 12:16, at least in part:
> Dave Camp wrote:
> > If you search the users list, you will find that many people are of
> > the opinion that you should only use BDB if you don't care about
> > your data. FSFS does not have the stability issues that svn + bdb
> > has. Most of the posts about "my BDB repository has crashed" are
> > usually answered with "switch to FSFS".
>
> I think that's a little unfair to BDB. Yes there are many reports of
> "my BDB repo has 'crashed'", but invariably it is a result of new
> users not understanding BDB's behaviour when an operation is
> improperly interrupted ("wedging"). This has nothing to do with
> "caring about your data" but ease of use with the server (i.e. data is
> not lost, you just need to manually run 'svnadmin recover'). An more
> experienced admin can set things up so this never becomes a problem.
> New BDB's auto-recover from "wedging" so it isn't an issue at all any
> more.
I can but support this. And probably it is worthwhile to have a good
look at the dates of the majority of those mails. I used Subversion
from version .27 till 1.0 on Windows 2K, served by Apache, and
wedged repositories were a problem indeed, though decreasingly. I
returned to Subversion at version 1.3/1.4, with otherwise same
environment, and never had a problem with a wedged repository
since. Of course BDB has grown in version, too, and I think that
makes part of the difference, with improved performance of
Subversion making for another part (e.g. less chance of timeouts
with larger commits on slower networks a/o machines).
JH
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:
I may not agree with what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- Voltaire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 9 18:35:52 2007