I can tell you that we're running SVN 1.1.1 on windows exposed via
Apache 2.0.52 (with BDB as backend) for about 9 months now and have
never (knocking furiously on something that looks like wood but probably
isn't) had any instances of corruption or wedging of the
repository/database. However, we only have about a half dozen
developers doing commits with any kind of frequency and maybe that many
more regularly viewing the repository via Trac. I think I would have a
warmer, fuzzier feeling with a PostgreSQl backend, as you will see
plenty of other people hinting at if you read the users list.
But as I said, I believe that my fears are mostly irrational, as SVN and
Trac have been working flawlessly (and they both ROCK!)...
Wes
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Pierre Sevigny [mailto:jpierre@zingy.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:32 AM
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: svn back-end question
Hi!
I'm currently looking at replacing our current CVS with Subversion.
I have some concerns about using Berkeley DB as a back-end. I would like
to ask what you think of it.
1) How stable is it, for a midsize company? (potentially 100+ users at
the same time).
2) Would it be better to go to a flat-file back-end configuration? I've
read the http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/info/fsfs article, and have some
concern about the maturiry of such back-end.
Thanks,
Jean-Pierre
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu Jan 20 18:59:11 2005