Re: Repository access woes

On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 21:44, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Yes, perhaps subversion raises the barrier-to-entry for setting up a
> shared repository. But in return, you get real database features,
> like transactions, atomic commits, and rollback. That's the tradeoff.
> That's "better" than CVS.

Well, I think we can get the same nice features without using Berkeley
DB, though it would be interesting to see if my ideas are a net
performance win or lose. Regardless, that's definitely post-1.0.

Jack Repenning wrote:
> In the former case, the many copies of this program are running on
> the same host

Yes, good point. That raises the question of whether NFS flaws tend to
manifest only when different client machines are accessing the
filesystem. I don't know enough about NFS implementations to be sure
one way or the other.

(Seems a little odd to put the repository on an NFS server and then only
access it from one client, but I can imagine reasons to do that, such as
wanting to have a single backup system.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 19 06:50:29 2003