Thanks for the information. Actually, I have had an environment where BDB
is reasonably reliable, but in the past I had up to 4 hangs/corruption
events per month. Needless to say, we all considered going to FSFS at that
point, but without information regatrding the cause we weren't sure throwing
another variable in the mix was worth it. I have achieved BDB reliability
by restricting access to the repository to svnserve only for writing and
keeping my server's up to date. I cannot be certain that any of these had
anything to do with my corruption events, they are products of software
superstition to a large extent.
In terms of I speed I'm ok with the potential difference. I can checkout
about 1 GB from svn in 10 minutes, so if my new team will have .01-.1GB of
data, the difference in checkout times between FSFS and BDB even if it's a
factor of two.
I do have a question regarding corruption in FSFS. I realize that it is
less frequent. What's the standard resolution path (recovery?) and how
often has it failed totally?
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Varner [mailto:jlvarner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:30 PM
To: Kahn, Peter
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Problems with FSFS
On 10/26/05, Kahn, Peter <Peter.Kahn@ironmountain.com> wrote:
> I have been running svn for about 18 months on BDB with a 2-6 GB
> environment.
>
> I have had some problems and been able to resolve them. I am setting
> up a new repository for a new team. I have the option to use FSFS and
> BDB. The team will have a small repository environment (less than 100
> MB for the next
> 1-2 years).
>
> Which repository is more reliable FSFS or BDB?
>
> Has anyone had an FSFS issue and if so, what was the resolution path?
> Thanks for the help.
>
There have bee occasional issues with FSFS, but they are less frequent than
with BDB. You obviously have an environment that runs BDB reliably,
typically BDB only fails in certain environments that violate some
conditions BDB expects, so if you are setting up on the same machine either
is fine.
FSFS is now the default b/c it works in more environments (i.e. looser
requirements on the filesystem), but I believe it is marginally slower - not
significantly slower, just noticeable under some testing conditions - for
day to day use network latency or working copy operations usually take more
time than on the repository side.
Josh
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this email message and its attachments
is intended only for the private and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above, unless the sender expressly agrees
otherwise.
Transmission of email over the Internet is not a secure
communications medium. If you are requesting or have requested the
transmittal of personal data, as defined in applicable privacy laws
by means of email or in an attachment to email, you must select a
more secure alternate means of transmittal that supports your
obligations to protect such personal data.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient and/or
you have received this email in error, you must take no action
based on the information in this email and you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, misuse or copying or disclosure of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and
delete the original message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 26 23:47:16 2005