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