+1
-Hyrum
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>wrote:
> +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 22:24:43 CET