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

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:27:09 +0100

On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote:
> The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
> In what way are you then comparing the backends?
> You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching.
> I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we should do it for
> the right reasons, not by using skewed numbers.

Caching is part of the FSFS backend. One would assume that a key-value
database like BDB would have its own cache, which is therefore
implicitly part of the BDB back-end. I don't see how you could construe
these numbers as skewed.

As Lieven says -- FSFS has been steadily improving while BDB was
standing still these last 6 years. IMO, if there were enough users of
the BDB back-end to matter, we'd have been given incentive (through bad
language on users@ ...) to do more than just keep the back-end limping
along to make the testsuite work.

-- Brane

Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Received on 2013-01-06 11:27:46 CET

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.