Concerning Re: any rationale for new installs
David Weintraub wrote on 12 Jun 2009, 12:38, at least in part:
> 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.
It might be interesting to learn where all these corrupted revisions
lately coming up this place origin in and if there is a relation to the
backend beyond the fact of fsfs being pushed.
On Windows BDB was a nightmare from SVN ver. .24 up to at
least 1.0 (where we dropped SVN) with corrupted(*) repositories at
least once a day, yet when giving SVN another shot at 1.2 or 1.3
the problems were gone and we haven't had any issues with BDB
ever since, and not even when SVN updates require or suggest a
dump-load-cycle we would think of using anything but BDB for the
new repository. The repository is accessed through Apache only
however.
(*) developer's euphemism for this is "wedged" because the access
is corrupted, not the data, but a country also might recover from a
corrupt administration, yet it still is a corrupt, not a wedged
administration.
JH
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:
Es widerspricht der freiheitlichen Ordnung,
die die Entscheidung über Produktion und Konsum dem einzelnen überläßt,
die private Initiative bei der Vorsorge für die Wechselfälle
und Notstände des Lebens auch dann auszuschalten,
wenn der einzelne dazu fähig und gewillt ist,
selbstverantwortlich und eigenständig vorzusorgen.
Wirtschaftliche Freiheit und totaler Versicherungszwang vertragen sich nicht.
Der staatliche Zwangsschutz hat demnach dort haltzumachen,
wo der einzelne und seine Familie noch in der Lage sind,
selbstverantwortlich und individuell Vorsorge zu treffen.
-- Ludwig Erhard, 1956
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2365814
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-06-26 20:45:56 CEST