If you search the users list, you will find that many people are of
the opinion that you should only use BDB if you don't care about your
data. FSFS does not have the stability issues that svn + bdb has.
Most of the posts about "my BDB repository has crashed" are usually
answered with "switch to FSFS".
Dave
On Mar 7, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Justin Johnson wrote:
> I recently read the following statement on the dev list and wanted to
> get some feedback.
>
> "For those people who are using a NAS to store the repository, FSFS
> really really really sucks."
>
> The rest of that thread describes proposals on how to improve its
> performance.
>
> In a conversation on the phone with CollabNet recently we were told
> there should be no problem using FSFS repositories on NAS/NFS. The
> comment above makes me think that isn't a good idea now. I know
> CollabNet uses Berkeley and NAS for their repositories. Perhaps this
> is one of the reasons why they aren't using FSFS.
>
> Can anyone give any feedback on the above comment and make a
> recommendation? We already are setting up hardware with NAS/NFS for
> storage based on CollabNet's recommendation, so if it would be better
> to go with Berkeley I'd like to know soon.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 9 17:22:56 2007