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

Re: FSFS or Berkeley DB

From: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2004-08-27 10:49:36 CEST

William Nagel wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> 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.

That said, on Mac OS X, BDB appears particularly unstable, and you would
probably be better off with FSFS.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 27 10:50:54 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.