Max Bowsher wrote:
>Lindsay, Phil wrote:
>
>
>>We are in the midst of conversion from clear case to subversion.
>>Apparently someone in-house built a version of subversion on fedora 1
>>(probably incorrectly?) and had a issue with a wedged/locked db file. This
>>raised concerned form rcs folk about the security of source code
>>should a db file become corrupted, etc...
>>
>>
>
>A wedged db hasn't lost any data.
>
>
>
>>Folk read Ben's fud note, but there is still some fear, if a db file is
>>partially damaged is it recoverable sans backup?
>>
>>
>
>Depends on the extent and type of damage.
>
>
>
>>Have there been any
>>issues between subversion versions and db structure?
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand the question.
>
>
>
>>Looking for any
>>info that can help dispel the fear in some old time rcs folk (yes,
>>they used to hack rcs files and are looking for analog to vi
>>+ rcs files).
>>
>>
>
>Well, If it really comes to that, the equivalent to vi is a scripting language with berkeley DB bindings.
>
>But, seriously, all you have to do is implement a sensible backup regime.
>
>You can even use post-commit hooks to save incremental dumps of new revisions as they are committed, until the next actual backup.
>
>Max.
>
>
>
You must admit, it's a little hard to sell something when it comes with
the stipulation "You really, REALLY need to have good backups because
something can go wrong, and probably will go wrong".
Personally I think the DB backend is much more touchy than even the
backend files for other things like postgresql - i think mostly due to
the multiple access methods. If you stick to one and only one access
method, either through svnserve or apache, the problems are reduced.
Having said that, 1.1 will give you the option to use a file system
backend, which I'm betting will be much more robust.
--
Brian Mathis
http://directedge.com/b/
Received on Fri Jul 2 20:16:04 2004