On Oct 27, 2005, at 00:04, Joshua Varner wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Kahn, Peter <Peter.Kahn@ironmountain.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> The way repositories are stored in FSFS if one file is corrupted
> you will
> lose only the single revision it represented. If there is no
> backup, the
> best bet is to manually fix the file, which can be done in a number of
> ways, but requires knowledge of the format. I've seen people run
> svnadmin
> verify, find the broken revision, send it to a dev (who volunteered
> to look)
> and they fixed the file.
>
> Failure rate statistics are not something I have, might be a good
> idea to
> do a survey at some point.
In my ~9 months of reading this list, I've heard of dozens of
instances (far too many to recall) of BDB repositories getting
wedged, and a handful of instances of unrecoverable corruption,
versus zero such problems with FSFS. That is to say, it is not
possible for FSFS repositories to get wedged; wedging is a "feature"
of BerkeleyDB. The fact that the Subversion developers have made FSFS
the default as of Subversion 1.2.0 should also speak for its stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 27 11:37:34 2005