Re: comparission between fsfs and bdb subversion backands

Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote:

>Could someone provide some real world numbers on medium( or large)
>size repository performance which compares fsfs and bdb backends ?
>
>as for now i see this differences:
>fsfs+ no write access needed for anonymous readonly access (bdb requires it)
>fsfs+ no berkleydb dependency
>fsfs- new, not extensively tested
>
>i'm interested in:
>1) performance info
>
>
Seems fine - I have a 36K+ repository over webdav, and it appears no
slower than dbd used to be with a smaller repository.

>2) repository size (for medium..large repositories)
>
>
I've checked out (cvs.php.net/pear) into my repo - prefectly ok.

>3) speed differences
>
>
appears to be the same as bdb

4) Reliability
In my view, 1000x better than bdb - no corrupt databases since I
installed it (very common before that)

The only downside is that backups via nfs is problematic due to the no.
of files in the data dir.

Regards
Alan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 31 03:03:10 2004