Is "+1" too short of a response?
:-)
On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> For the following reasons
>
> - FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
> since 1.2.
>
> - Looking at commit history, I've not seen a single (functional or
> performance) improvement, beyond a few bug fixes, in the BDB backend in at
> least two years. The last significant change that I'm aware of was released
> in 1.4 (support for BDB 4.4. and DB_REGISTER) back in 2006. In effect, BDB
> is in "barely maintained" mode whereas interesting things are happening to
> FSFS all the time.
>
> - I cannot remember seeing a BDB-related bug report in a month of
> Sundays (meaning that it's either rock-solid, or not used).
>
> - The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS
> - timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac:
> - FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
> - BDB: real 35m17.766s, user 15m28.395s, sys 11m58.824s
>
> I propose that we:
>
> - Declare the BDB backend deprecated in 1.8, adding appropriate
> warnings when it's used or manipulated (to svnadmin?)
>
> - Stop supporting it (including bug fixes) in 1.9
>
> - Completely remove the BDB-related code in 1.10 (I'm making an
> assumption that we'll have the FSv2 API and releated refactoring of FSFS by
> then, and at least a draft experimental FSv2 implementation).
>
>
> I realize I'm raising this question at a time when we should be focusing
> on branching 1.8. On the other hand, this release may be a good opportunity
> to deprecate the Berkeley DB filesystem.
>
>
> --
> Branko Čibej
> Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
>
>
Received on 2013-01-05 16:40:37 CET