Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 21:21:43 +0000, Martin A. Brooks
>> <martin@hinterlands.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm getting a bit annoyed that the automatic answer to every BDB
>>>> problem is "switch to FSFS". :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> That's easy to fix, just make it so BDB doesn't cause about 80% of
>>> the problems reported to this list :)
>>
>>
>> If you all start using fsfs, that should happen soon enough....
>>
>
> Yes, there are problems with the way Subversion utilizes BDB. Yes,
> we're working to fix the usage, and Sleepycat is working on changing
> BDB to address some of these things as well.
>
> Regardless (as has been said in the past): reading this list gives a
> skewed view of reality. If I were reading this list, I would think BDB
> is some horrible, unusable thing. My guess, though, is that 95% of
> people using BDB repositories have no problems whatsoever. The 5% who
> have problems tend to dominate the list.
Is there any statistical knowledge or anything better than a guess about
how many people use BDB and how many use FSF?
Since I'm on the list, I have not observed one single complaint against
FSFS, while lots of problems seem to arise from BDB. That is, as far as
I observed, the problems where the backend is the culprit divide into
100%(BDB):0%(FSFS). Maybe I missed something, please correct me if so.
I choose FSFS because I didn't want to install and take care of another
big software packet (and because I heard that BDB was a bit unstable when
used by other people) - now I'm glad. :-)
It looks like FSFS does a very good job - my congrats for creating it!
Dirk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 22 11:41:32 2005