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

Re: Experience with FSFS repository

From: Scott Palmer <scott.palmer_at_2connected.org>
Date: 2004-09-17 19:14:02 CEST

On Sep 17, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Patrick Dean Rusk wrote:

> "Martin Tomes" <lists@tomes.org> wrote...
>> We use BDB and it has *never* got wedged and there is little reason
>> why it
> should if you set up the
>> server correctly.
>
> That has been our experience as well.
>
> It would be helpful if people like Scott who talk Subversion wedging
> their
> repositories a lot in the past would make it clear what version of
> Subversion they were using.

It was Greg who had issues with BDB "wedging." - I have NEVER had the
DB "wedge", I've only been testing subversion 1.1RC2 (now RC3) for a
couple weeks.

But there seems to be a lot of issues related to BDB that show up on
this list (which I've also only been tracking for the last couple
weeks), many of which seem to be with version 1.0.x. I haven't heard
anyone complain much about FSFS. But it is also new and not used as
often - so that is to be expected.

That all gets back to the whole point I started this thread. FSFS
reads like it is generally immune to a few problems that can happen
with BDB and it can be used in a few situations where BDB cannot. So
it makes sense to me to just pick FSFS for my repository. The down
side being that FSFS will have it's own share of bugs that are yet to
be discovered, so I wondered just how many people were using FSFS and
if they have found any problems with it thus far.

Scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 17 19:14:41 2004

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