I would agree with you, and have only been using it from Oct 04 till now,
upgrading svn as I go. But their is some configuration mixture with BDB 4.2to
4.3 in this move to svn 1.2.0 that only one of our 7 repos did not handle
well, which was our largest 4+ GB.
Not saying it a Berkeley issue or an SVN issue, but seems to be some mix or
procedure in converting over in our case.
We chose the Berkeley path with the intention to use the hotbackup, which
helps for running two db back to back for recovery with less down time. At
the moment SVNADMIN can not seem to handle loading the dump file of this
size when restoring to BDB, but works just fine going to FSFS.
On 7/1/05, Soren 'Frank' Munch <sm_sbv@u5.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
--
- lan
Received on Sat Jul 2 00:09:55 2005