That's true, administering any database is non-trivial. That said BDB
provides true transaction support.
That has been mentioned as a key differentiator for Subversion. With
FSFS if I am not mistaken you
can not guarantee atomic update of properties and the revision database
(if a file being committed
has content and propset modified). That would require a database
transaction spanning two tables
and FSFS can only do atomic rename at file/dir level.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Dave Camp <dcamp@mac.com> wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Yes, but that has to do with the fact that unexperienced users
> shouldn't try to administer an environment as complex as bdb. The
> posting of the message itself is a sign the user may belong in the
> group of FSFS users.
>
> bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> PS: Admin overhead of FSFS is *much* lower that for BDB. That doesn't
> say our BDB backend isn't good for some (many) users.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
--
Rahul Bhargava
http://www.rahulbhargava.org
Phone: (925) 265-8801(W)|895-2201(M)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 9 18:44:57 2007