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

Re: Berkeley DB versus Flat Filesystem Repositories

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-03-10 01:44:32 CET

"Craig A. Vanderborgh" <craigv@voxware.com> writes:
> 0. Long-term "bullet proof" operation is the primary need - all other
> considerations are secondary.
> 1. The repositories will be large - about the size of Linux kernel
> source trees.
> 2. The commits to the repositories will be fairly infrequent.
> 3. Merge conflicts will be relatively rare
> 4. Speed of working area population is of paramount importance
> So, based on these factors I've concluded that Flat Filesystem is the
> better choice for us. Does this seem right? Our server platform is
> x86linux RedHat 8. I've downloaded and installed the pre-compiled
> RPMS for RH8. But - is this pre-compiled version Berkeley DB only?
> What do I have to do to get Flat Filesystem - if this is what I
> *should* do :^)

Given requirement 0, I think FSFS is right for you. Not that Berkeley
DB itself has reliability problems, mind you -- but the way Subversion
uses Berkeley DB has some problems, unfortunately, which require more
admin attention to avoid than most people want to put in. Part of the
reason FSFS was written was to give people an easier option.

By the way, there's a contradiction between 0 and 4. If 0 is the
primary need, and all other concerns are secondary, then 4 can't be
"paramount" :-).

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 10 02:06:23 2005

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.