[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: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:52:38 -0500

On 01/07/2013 06:12 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net
> <mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net>> wrote:
> hosted elsewhere for them. The BDB backend (thanks to improvements to the
> Berkeley DB library itself) is much more stable today than it was when we
> first started this project, so it's quite possible that we don't hear noise
> That's quite surprising. My understanding from the Sleepycat/Oracle team
> way back when was that our core usage of BDB was wrong and would never be
> properly supported by them. Have they embraced multiple reader/writer
> processes now, or do they still advocate that having a single-process is the
> only Right Way(tm)? -- justin

Subversion's core usage of BDB arguably helped to advance the state of the
Berkeley DB art. Multi-process support has been officially part of the
Berkeley DB API since at least the 4.4 release (Branko will remember the
original DB_REGISTER work, I'm sure). And just few years ago I was even
having private conversations in which ex-Sleepycat folk were trying to urge
the Subversion project to further embrace Berkeley DB, specifically its
built-in database replication support. Single-process (via a brokering
daemon) is still the recommended approach, of course, but my understanding
is that it's no longer considered the Only Right Way.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Enterprise Cloud Development

Received on 2013-01-07 15:53:17 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.