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

Re: svn and berkeley db corruption revisited

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-11-28 17:48:44 CET

On Nov 28, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Chris Rose wrote:

> I'm starting to get the impression that the BDB format is not really
> so much the way to go -- is there a consensus developing on the
> subject? Would it be worth the hassle of doing a dump/restore and
> changing to an fs-type for it?

IMO, you're getting that impression because the 1% of people who have
BDB problems seem to occupy 50% of the traffic on this list. There's
already been a thread about this, with dozens and dozens of people (the
other 99%) speaking out about how they have no problems with BDB
whatsoever. Reading this list will definitely give a skewed
impression. :-)

If you ask the svn developers, I think the consensus is: if you're not
having problems, you're not likely to. There's no reasons to switch to
fsfs preemptively.

(I'm in the same boat as you, by the way. I have several BDB
repositories, but have never had any problems, and thought about
switching to fsfs... but why fix what ain't broke?)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 28 17:50:55 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.