I'm sending this reply back to the list so others can benefit from
the answer.
On Jan 25, 2006, at 13:42, Noam Tamim wrote:
>> I recommend switching to FSFS so you never have to worry about this
>> again.
>>
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#bdb-fsfs-convert
>
> Thanks for your tips. One question though:
> I thought BDB is superior to FSFS, and this is the reason we chose
> to use it. Other than this upgrade issue, what are the (dis)
> advantages of each?
I think the usual consensus is that FSFS is superior. The default
repository format is FSFS as of Subversion 1.2.0 which indicates the
Subversion team believes it to be the best choice. BDB was only
chosen because it was available. BDB is generally a good database
system, but it needs to be used in very specific ways in order for it
to be so. Subversion unfortunately uses BDB in slightly weird ways,
leading many people's repositories to wedge rather more often than
most people would like. The Subversion team is working with the BDB
team to resolve some of these issues in BDB 4.4 but who knows when
that will be out or whether that will fix everything.
There have been some recent mails on the list and a bug report about
the repository being unable to store > 2 GB in one revision (and
claiming the commit has succeeded even though the data has been
truncated), despite the fact that this is supposed to work. So if you
plan to commit many large files at one time, that may be a reason to
stick with BDB for the time being.
The Subversion team maintains a comparison between BDB and FSFS
storage engines here:
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/fsfs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 25 14:10:07 2006