[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Problems with the Migration of a old repository to a new Subversion and BerkeleyDB Version

From: Ryan Schmidt <subversion-2006Q1_at_ryandesign.com>
Date: 2005-12-22 14:22:31 CET

Please keep replies on the list so others can benefit from the

On Dec 22, 2005, at 14:04, Gasser Rolf RUAG E wrote:

> As I made a svnadmin dump and a svnadmin load, all worked fine!Thanx.
> What I have to do, to create fsfs repositories?

If you are using Subversion 1.2.0 or greater (you said you're using
1.2.3) then "svnadmin create" created an FSFS repository for you. You
don't have to do anything else. To confirm that you have an FSFS
repository now, look at the contents of the db/fs-type file in your
repository directory.

> How stable are they?

FSFS has been available since Subversion 1.1.0 and as of 1.2.0 is the
default for new repositories. That says to me that the Subversion
team believes FSFS to be completely stable and an improvement over
BDB repositories.

My year on the Subversion mailing list has shown me that people are
constantly reporting "wedging" problems where their repository is in
an unusable state until they perform confusing recovery steps, which
sometimes don't succeed. FSFS repositories, by design, cannot wedge.

With FSFS, you also avoid the BDB problem where you *have to* dump/
load your repository, or run other recovery steps, when upgrading to
a new version of BDB. With FSFS, it's sometimes *recommended* to dump/
load when upgrading Subversion to take advantage of some
improvements, but so far it hasn't been *required*.

> What are the other advantages of the fsfs vs. Berkeley?

Here's the team's propaganda document about FSFS:


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Dec 25 00:23:04 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.