On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 12:16 +0200, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2005, at 08:51, Gregory Youngblood wrote:
>
> > Follow up question, I'm assuming the fsfs back end will be much
> > more stable and less prone to (nonrecoverable?) errors than the bdb
> > version. Is it?
>
> Based on my observing posts on this list for 8 months, yes.
That's good - I'm glad to hear this.
>
>
> > If you copy a repos from an old machine to a newer one (older SVN
> > to newer SVN), will the old fsfs data be read by the newer version
> > of svn?
>
> Currently, yes, Subversion 1.2 can read FSFS repositories made with
> Subversion 1.1 (the first version in which FSFS was available)
> without issue.
>
> > Or will it have to go through a dump/load to upgrade as well?
>
> You get a performance improvement if you dump and load when going
> from 1.1 to 1.2, because 1.2 has a new delta format, but the dump and
> load is not required.
I can accept a performance hit for not upgrading. This backwards
compatibility is important to me. I realize svn is not cvs, however cvs
has been around for quite a while. And, I don't think it has seen too
many changes to the file format over the years (RCS files right?). This
means I can recover old cvs repos from backups and almost always just
drop them into a current system and use them again. That's very powerful
(and comforting).
Either way, you can bet I'll be adding an svnadmin dump to my backup
process once (if?) I get these recovered.
Thanks,
Greg
Received on Thu Oct 20 15:26:36 2005