On 15 Jul 2005, at 8:35 AM, John wrote:
> I'd vote for a db-neutral approach, since the main reason for doing
> this is a
> 'comfort' benefit for IT managers. SVN doesn't really need an SQL
> backend (fsfs
> rocks), but it would make a lot of people feel better if their
> repositories
> could be stored in regular SQL Server / Oracle / etc db's.
> Something they
> understand and feel comfortable with.
Personally, I can see another benefit: many, if not all organizations
already have databases of some sort (or of multiple sorts) in place.
That usually implies that the infrastructure around the database--
network, server, backups, admin tools, monitoring, etc--is also in
place. Making it easy to store the data there allows that
infrastructure to be leveraged for an SVN install, possibly lowering
the barrier to entry. (I realize that most organizations should also
have file-system backups in place, but my experience is that the
databases get more attention and are a bit easier to monitor. YMMV,
of course.)
With that said, I think that fsfs provides a reasonable option and
I'm not sure that a SQL backend would provide much in the way of
feature benefits for the current userbase.
Kevin Broderick / kbroderick@smcvt.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 15 15:22:58 2005