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

Re: FSFS vs BDB

From: Mark Eichin <eichin_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:12:11 -0500

BDB got a really bad rep for needing recovery from
repository-destroying failures, back before FSFS came out - enough
that I stuck with CVS rather than migrate a large repository to SVN at
all until well after FSFS went in.

I don't know if it *still* has this reputation, but I don't really
need to find out, FSFS has been quite solid for us.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Weintraub <qazwart_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always used FSFS. Mainly because it is easier to maintain and has
> fewer headaches. No wedging issues, etc.
>
> However, FSFS can be slower in certain circumstances. Plus, FSFS makes
> Subversion's data structure harder to modify. (This really doesn't
> affect the users, but the developers. I bet the developers would
> rather everyone use DBD, so they can simplify the structure).
>
> Originally, Subversion only used DBD. FSFS was added in Subversion 1.2
> and made the default in Subversion 1.3.
>
> This page should explain everything:
> <http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/fsfs>.
> --
> David Weintraub
> qazwart_at_gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:38 AM, <sandeep.saxena_at_rbs.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any thoughts on which format (FSFS or BDB) is recommended for big projects.
>> From what I read on Internet Reviews, FSFS is always recommended.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sandeep.
>>
>> ***********************************************************************************
>> The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
>> Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
>>
>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
>> addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
>> than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
>> by replying to it and then delete the message from your
>> computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
>> Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
>> changes made to this message after it was sent.
>>
>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
>> transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
>> ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
>> message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
>> systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The
>> Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
>> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>> Visit our websites at:
>> www.rbs.com
>> www.rbs.com/gbm
>> www.rbsgc.com
>> ***********************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>

-- 
_Mark_ <eichin_at_thok.org> <eichin_at_gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-13 05:12:34 CET

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.