Hi,
reading the last postings one could get the idea that Subversion with Berkeley
is a risky affair.
We have been using Berkeley for 8 years or so, on dozens of servers, as a part
of Postfix, Postgres, MySQL, Cyrus and for about a year with Subversion on
FreeBSD. Some of the servers are having tens of thousands of pageloads pr.
day and handling an equal number of mails.
Status: We have never had a problem with Berkely, not one in all the time! It
sounds too good to be true, but it isn't. The only problem I recall - which
seems to have gone away - is numerous entries in syslog over several years
about hundreds of Berkeley 'lockers'.
This despite all the occasional problems one can expect, like a server crash
now and then. I have repaired quite a couple of MySQL dbs over time, a few
Postgres ditto but have yet to gain any experience with repairing Berkeley
(or Svn for that matter).
A couple of recent posters report problems using OS X, maybe there's a problem
on this system. So some have other experiences with Berkeley/Svn, but
considering the services already done by this combination the strong
statements we have seen seems really misleading.
I think it is far more correct to claim that if you are using Svn+Berkeley you
are very unlikely to experience any problems. At the same time I could
imagine that fsfs is a better choice for most average size reps. I have a gut
feeling that Berkely is a little big and complicated and with some known
drawbacks (of which instability is _not_ one, unless the whole system
crashes). Should I one day find the time I might migrate our old reps.
IMHO!
Soren 'Frank'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 1 22:40:39 2005