some questions/comments on using fsfs for file system

Having just had a problem yesterday with an error "No transaction named
'a80'. DB needs recovery", I already had a dumpfile to do the recovery
process, so I thought I would try out the fsfs alternative in the latest
version of svn. I read the notes that mentions the advantages and
disadvantages but my initial impressions are very good!

The server setup was dual processor AMD MP-2000, 512 MB ram, MS Windows
Server 2003, NTFS formatted disk.

The dump file is 2 GB from yesterdays database to do recovery , 13210
revisions. I use svnserve for repository access.

BDB = svn with Berkeley DB
FSFS = svn with file system

The time to load dump file using svnadmin:

    BDB: 5 hrs 5% processor
    FSFS: 1 hr 30% processor usage

This alone would make it worthwhile for me to switch to FSFS! The time to
convert other repositories from CVS would be much reduced.

Disk space used:

    BDB 840 MB,
    FSFS 244 MB ( 320 MB on disk reported by explorer)

Copy across network with explorer, ( not good for copying lots of files, but
everyone uses it ):

    BDB 3 minutes, 50% network utilisation
    FSFS 5 minutes 10 % network utilisation

Checkout trunk with svnserve and command line client, 6000 files:

    BDB 6 minutes
    FSFS 4 minutes

Backup using server 2003 backup program:

    BDB 2 1/2 minutes
    FSFS 4 1/2 minutes

Would the NTFS file compression work ok with FSFS? I wouldn't expect it to
work safely with BDB and never tried it.

I no longer need hotbackup or recover?

Is it good for 20,000, 30,000, and upwards revisions? Has anyone tried more?

Assuming it works reliably for multi user access I cant see any downside to
switching, have I over looked something?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 12 01:59:58 2004