On a hopefully related note, I was wondering what people's experience is
with BDB and "large" repositories... namely large binary files (eg
100Mbs+, quite a few revisions), and a large number of files (~100K). Eg
a complete video game project including all assets (textures, audio
files, etc).
My gut feeling is that putting such data into a database (as opposed to
have a database maintain metadata about the files) would kill most
databases. It can even kill some filesystems {when combined with version
control idiotsyncrancies like having binary file history in one file)!-)
Another major issue that FSFS seems to address is backups. Without
specific info about the DB structure I fear that the size of the backup
is not dependent on the changed files/data. This is disastrous (>14hour
backup times) when it comes to this size of a repository.
FSFS seems to be the only choice. Am I mistaken?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: David F. Newman [mailto:dnewman@epnet.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:40 AM
To: SVN Users
Subject: BDB vs. FSFS
Hi,
I am curious if the developers of subversion, in general, favor the use
of one backend over another? Before the release of 1.1 I was under the
impression that the FSFS back end was being developed solely to satisfy
those wish to store the repository on a network filesystem. However,
after reading the comparison at
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/fsfs I get the distinct
impression that FSFS is considered overall to be the better choice.
-Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 20:53:11 2004