>> I am going to be upgrading my system to 1.2, and I'm wondering what
>> the advantages/disadvantages of using FSFS for my repositories are?
(snip)
> Did you read the book section which compares BDB and FSFS?
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.3
Yes, I had read that. I found it to be (maybe intentionally) very
inconclusive, so I was looking for some real-world experience. It also
seems a lot gets written about users on shared file system, local users
access the same repository, etc, and none of those are issues for me
(due to exclusive access via svn://). It also mentions that it's
"relative immaturity compared to Berkeley DB", but now that it is the
default in 1.2, I'm assuming that is no longer true and wondering what
the updated info is (if any).
Ron
On Jun 16, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Jun 16, 2005, at 11:32 AM, Ron Gilbert wrote:
>
>> I am going to be upgrading my system to 1.2, and I'm wondering what
>> the advantages/disadvantages of using FSFS for my repositories are?
>>
>> All my users connect via svn:// (From WindowsXP to a FreeBSD server),
>> no one connects locally (except the admin, now and then) or via
>> WebDAV. Repositories typically house 3000 files, most of which are
>> large (1MB+) binary files.
>>
>> Is one more robust then the other? I do worry about using a DB due
>> to corruption issues. Is this a reasonable concern, or is the FSFS
>> repository just as complex in it's own way.
>>
>
> Did you read the book section which compares BDB and FSFS?
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 16 19:00:29 2005