Re: any rationale for new installs using Berkeley DB?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>
> In our CollabNet Subversion binaries we only include support for FSFS
> because we think the answer is No. There are some nice things about
> BDB, but FSFS is the way to go for virtually everyone.

In a certain sense this is sad. Subversion used BDB before FSFS was created.
BDB seemed like a good idea at the time because it meant that the layout of
the repository could more easily be updated.

However, BDB was not universal (i.e. it wasn't on Windows machines), it
couldn't be used for NFS file systems, it had a tendency to get wedged, and
it could become corrupted. FSFS was created to get around these issues, but
it was not the default file system. However, most people simply started
using it.

I understand that FSFS has made Subversion more difficult to upgrade. Now
there's talk of using a SQL backend (maybe using MySQL or possibly SQLite).
A backend database would make adding features and modifying the Subversion
repository structure easier.

-- 
David Weintraub
qazwart_at_gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2361681
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].