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

Re: Repository file system type

From: Eugene Vital <evital_at_egntech.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:20:25 -0400

John Peacock wrote:
> Eugene Vital wrote:
>> Anyone have any input on the pros/cons of using FSFS vs Berkley DB
> Use FSFS. There are ways to corrupt a BDB database that just cannot
> happen with FSFS. There is no good reason to use BDB any more, if you
> are just starting from scratch. It is also possible to host an FSFS
> repository on a networked filesystem (assuming your filesystem locking
> isn't broken)[1]. FSFS scales better (especially after 1.5.x, with
> the sharding behavior).
> My 2 cents
> John
> 1) NOTE: I do *not* mean you can have a remote filesystem on Windows
> using FSFS, at least not without much gnashing of teeth and custom
> configuration. The default Windows service accounts do not have _any_
> rights to remote filesystems, so it is a pain to make this work. Just
> run Linux... ;-)
Thanks for the feedback. We are in the process of re-organizing our
repository and it was originally setup using Berkly and I was leaning
towards FSFS for the new one.

I wouldn't even consider using Windows for the server!! FreeBSD is the
OS....... :-)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-29 13:19:54 CEST

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.