-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Well, no one wants to see a potential Subversion user decapitated, so
I'd have to suggest Berkeley DB. ;-)
In all seriousness, you're probably safe with FSFS, but given how new
it is, you might want to wait for version 1.1 to have a little time out
in full release before you give FSFS a go. Depending on how bad a
restoration from backup would be for you, it might even be prudent to
give it until 1.2.
Of course, if you have lots of repositories, the probability that more
than one would go down at a time is pretty remote.
Basically, I think it comes down to this question: Do the benefits of
FSFS over Berkely DB justify the (possibly) increased risk of
repository failure for you? In the case of my company, I'm not
planning to use FSFS for any of our repositories until it's had a bit
more time to shake out---and we're smaller than you. So, I think my
answer is that I would probably go with Berkeley DB if I were you.
On Aug 26, 2004, at 10:20 PM, Sean Moss-Pultz wrote:
> Hopefully some of you guys could help guide me on this one....
> I've read the document http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/info/fsfs and it
> sounds much better than running Berkeley DB. But then comes the line
> about immature code. This normally wouldn't really bother but we are
> running Subversion as our *only* version control system for about 100
> engineers. Like everyone, our code is extremely important. I would be
> beheaded for proposing a radical new file system that corrupted our
> data a later time :)
> Yes either way I would have backups but restoring from backups can
> take a long time. We have many repositories.
> So my question is this. Would you use FSFS or Berkeley DB if you were
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Aug 27 06:03:47 2004