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

Re: I lost 7 bdb repositories yesterday!

From: Adrian Hoe <mailbox_at_adrianhoe.com>
Date: 2005-07-04 16:56:00 CEST

On Jul 2, 2005, at 12:32 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On 01.07.2005, at 17:17, Dave Camp wrote:
>
>
>> - Does fsfs solve the fragility issues that bdb seems to have? If
>> moving the repositories to fsfs will make these problems a thing
>> of the past, I'm there.
>>
>> Management (and my fellow engineers) are going to be wanting some
>> answers from me in the next few days. If I can't explain how this
>> can be avoided in the future It's a good bet there will be a call
>> to move to a more stable platform. I really don't want that, but
>> I'm at a point where I don't trust subversion either right now
>> (one of the projects I had to restore was mine, and I'm supposed
>> to be Beta tomorrow).
>>
>
> I can't tell you specifically why this happened, but I'm willing to
> bet that the most relevant contributing factor is two B's with a D
> sandwiched in the middle, and that FSFS repositories are probably
> the more-stable platform you're looking for. I've been on the list
> half a year, and I long ago lost count of the number of BDB-related
> repository problems I've read about, whereby access to a repository
> was (usually temporarily, but sometimes permanently) lost through
> no fault of the administrator. Conversely, I can't recall a single
> similar post about FSFS in that time.
>
> The Subversion team will be quick to come to the rescue of BDB's
> reputation and assure you that there is no problem with BDB per se,
> it's just the way Subversion is using it. These details were,
> however, immaterial to me when I chose to use FSFS for my company's
> repository; all I cared about was the reliability. Our FSFS
> repository is used daily by 5-10 developers over Apache2, working
> on both separate and joint projects. The repository is 800MB in
> 2600 revisions, and we haven't had any problems yet.
>
> As of Subversion 1.2, FSFS is the default, which says to me that
> the Subversion team feels it's solid, and I would tend to agree. I
> encourage you to upgrade to Subversion 1.2 and try it. (1.2 has a
> slightly different FSFS storage mechanism than 1.1 which is
> supposed to make it a bit faster.)

I'm testing Subversion for my company and so far so good. I got a
little nervous after reading this thread. Currently, we have 26
repositories and 8 being source codes for web sites. I feared losing
the repositories. I'm on SVN 1.2 and that's safe because I read that
fsfs is the default in svn 1.2.

I just want to reassure my engineers that we're using fsfs instead of
bdb. I looked into the db directory and there are files/folders look
like this:

current
format
fs-type
revprops (folder)
revs (folder)
transactions (folder)
uuid
write-lock

and the file, fs-type, contains a string: "fsfs".

If I see this, am I using fsfs? It should be.

Unfortunately, I have 2 repositories using bdb. I have different
files and directory structure in db directory. I have no idea why
they are on bdb.

How can I convert them from bdb to fsfs? I have many revisions in
both repositories and don't want to loose any of the revisions data.

Why the subversion development team choose BDB? Why not PostgreSQL or
MySQL?

Thank you and best regards,

--
"If you missed the rising sun and the morning dew, don't miss the  
beautiful sunset." -- Adrian Hoe inspired by Michal Nowak, June 15 2004
http://adrianhoe.com
Received on Mon Jul 4 17:04:08 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.