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

Which repository technology

From: Dave Merrill <dmerrill_at_usa.net>
Date: 2005-05-21 16:54:39 CEST

SVN newb here...

All considered, do folks have any general recommendations about the choice
between BDB and FSFS repository technologies? I've read the info in the
docs, and am leaning towards FSFS. I have some concerns though:

  - At least it's possible to recover a Berkeley db; I don't know what you
could do with a messed up FSFS archive, except roll back to most recent
solid backups. Or is it supposedly not possible for it to get trashed in the
first place?

  - Docs on FSFS say, "Scalability: number of revision trees: some older
native filesystems don't scale well with thousands of entries in a single
    I don't expect, for now, a radically huge number of files, but I do
expect many committed revisions, and I'm on win2k. Does this make FSFS a
poor choice? Is there some particular repository or source code structure
that is safest to use under these circumstances?

  - FSFS's "diffs only" storage mechanism seems intuitively more fragile in
the long run. It seems that if *any* diff in the history of a file gets
corrupted, the file would become unusable.
    Am I understanding how that works? Only the very first checked in
revision of a file is stored in its native format, then it's diffs only from
there on out? Is the potential for problems as great as I'd think?

Thanks very much for your thoughts,

Dave Merrill

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 21 17:00:16 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.