On Oct 28, 2005, at 12:14, John Szakmeister wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> What do you mean by unrecoverable corruption? If you mean that
> people lost
> their repositories entirely, I don't have any recollection of such
> a thing.
> If you mean that in order to recover and move on, they had to
> suffer a loss
> of history or data in a particular file, then both FSFS and BDB
> have suffered
> from those situations (I've recovered 4 FSFS repositories in the
> past several
> months). That said, at least one of the FSFS corruptions turned
> out to be a
> hardware related failure.
>
I recall a couple messages on the list where people were unable to
get their BDB repositories working again using the recovery tools
Subversion and BDB provide, and they opted to go back to a previous
backup; perhaps these would have been manually recoverable by someone
with the necessary expertise. I also recall other messages from
people who had sought said manual recovery, and then no follow-up
appeared indicating that all was well again; perhaps we can assume,
though, that these people ended up having their repositories more or
less successfully restored, since they probably would have mentioned
it to the list if they hadn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 28 12:49:35 2005