On Monday 18 October 2004 20:39, David F. Newman wrote:
> 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
>
Well, we have several repos here (we implement the 'one repo per project'
approach), most of which are several hundred megs (see the list below,
sizes/revisions). All repos hold mostly binary files (98% overall).
We use BDB via http:// exclusively since SVN 0.27.0. Since 0.3X we never had a
single repo problem, except server being too slow ;-)
That said, I can recommend BDB, nothing to fear.
Backup is not a big time deal, too. Wee duump each repo every night and shove
them over together with the database files to two a backup servers via LAN,
takes less than an hour to complete.
To summarize, thanks to all you guys for building such an outstanding product!
(Now if only the externals concept were really useable... ;-)
Greetings,
Jörg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 19 09:39:36 2004