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

Re: any rationale for new installs using Berkeley DB?

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:13:30 -0500

David Weintraub wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com
> <mailto: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'd take this history to mean that whoever chose bdb as the default had
never used a bdb for anything that had multiple users or grew over time
and didn't understand the problems - and the opinion changed after
having some experience...

> 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.

Embedding sqllite might make things easier but probably can't do much
better performance-wise. A separate sql server as a backend would
probably introduce a lot of version dependencies.

   Les Mikesell
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-06-12 19:14:48 CEST

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