+1! -- justin
On Jan 5, 2013 10:40 AM, "Greg Stein" <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 18:53:47 CET