[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: Jani Averbach <jaa_at_jaa.iki.fi>
Date: 2005-03-22 16:51:49 CET

On 2005-03-21 23:48-0600, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > This has been discussed on IRC from time to time, but I guess not on
> > the mailing list. Since we want to branch for 1.2 pretty soon, now is
> > the time to decide it.
> >
> > Although neither back end is perfect, I think FSFS is less likely to
> > bite new users than BDB is. As such, I think it makes a better
> > default. It wouldn't have been prudent to make it the default in 1.1
> > due to lack of maturity, but I don't think that is a concern any
> > longer.
> Perhaps we should first fix the bug Max Bowsher filed today whereby
> one can load a dumpfile with bogus MD5 checksums into FSFS and FSFS
> won't even complain? :-)

And somebody should check/verify this report:


   Subject: File corruption causing SVNadmin seg fault
   From: Robert S. Sfeir (yosemitesam_at_gmail.com)
   Date: 2005-03-22 02:20:21 CET
   Message-Id: <CB5F6C93-866D-4DE1-8057-AB32537E77E2@gmail.com>

   So I went into the server and tried to run svnadmin verify repo and
   it goes through and then does one of those:
   * Verified revision 371.
   * Verified revision 372.
   * Verified revision 373.
   * Verified revision 374.
   * Verified revision 375.
   Segmentation fault
   We're running FSFS not BDB.

BR, Jani

Jani Averbach
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 22 16:53:16 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.