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

Re: subversion fud...and rcs old timers..

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-07-02 20:02:45 CEST

"Lindsay, Phil" <plindsay@tickets.com> writes:
> Folk read Ben's fud note, but there is still some fear, if a db file is
> partially damaged is it recoverable sans backup?

In SVN, as with RCS files or any other storage mechanism, if the
storage is damaged severely and there is no backup, it is possible
that data will be permanently lost.

In SVN, as with RCS files or almost any other storage mechanism, if
the storage is damaged in a non-severe way and there is no backup, you
might still be possible to recover your data, but there are no
guarantees.

When a SVN repository is "wedged" and needs recovery (due to being
accessed with incorrect permissions or whatever), there is no data
loss. Your data is still in there, and when the repository is
recovered you will be able to access it again.

None of this addresses the concern of the RCS old-timers, of course.
What they're really saying is "If something goes wrong, I feel I can
hand-hack RCS files and recover a lot of the data, but I don't feel
that way about Subversion."

And they're right -- Subversion's repository is less hand-hackable
than an RCS file tree. Although Subversion's new FSFS back end is
probably more hand-hackable than its BDB back end, neither is as
hand-hackable as plain RCS files.

I don't know if this helps you make your case or not. Good luck!

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 2 21:35:29 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.