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

Re: FSFS performance on NAS/NFS

From: Jeff Smith <jsmith_at_robotronics.com>
Date: 2007-03-27 23:59:38 CEST

On Friday 09 March 2007 11:15, Rahul Bhargava wrote:
> 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.

Well hey now wait a minute...
Why would FSFS be any less "atomic" of a commit than using BDB? Are
you understanding that all of this transaction (both data and
properties) go into the same FSFS file which is the single revision?
There is nothing there stopping it from being guaranteed, and is a
function of subversion, no the file storage mechanism. I would love
more explanation or clarification of implied effects of the
non-atomic update that you ever-so-lightly mentioned, thanks.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 28 00:01:03 2007

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.