[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: FSFS as default for svn 1.2?

From: Erik Huelsmann <e.huelsmann_at_gmx.net>
Date: 2005-03-22 11:32:12 CET

> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >
> > My only caveat: if we do decide to switch to FSFS as the default, we
> > need to be very careful about how we announce/describe that fact. It
> > might be very easy for people to think that we're dropping BDB support
> > (or deprecating it, phasing it out) when in fact the exact opposite is
> > true: Sleepycat is working to make BDB better, and we're working to
> > make better use of it. It's just that none of that will be visible yet
> > in 1.2. :-/
> Reading:
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.3
> there don't actually seem to be any really compelling reasons to use
> BDB. If FSFS becomes the default, in what circumstances would
> someone want to convert their repository back to BDB?
> I guess playing the devils advocate here, if FSFS is mature enough
> now, and BDB offers few advantages and has several disadvantages,
> why continue to support BDB?

Because we'd have to release 2.0 to be able to drop it...

But also: there are some operations which are faster in the bdb setup. In
the 1.x series 'svn blame' is a lot slower for FSFS than it is for bdb.
(This has been addressed for 1.2 though.)

There are some others too. Although it seems to scale better than we
originally thought it would / the use case it was designed for.



DSL Komplett von GMX +++ SupergŁnstig und stressfrei einsteigen!
AKTION "Kein Einrichtungspreis" nutzen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 22 11:33:26 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.