On May 12, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Kurt Lidl wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Anthony Pankov wrote:
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB
under
high load?
It is important for me because of using BDB in my project.
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 01:52:46PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
As one of the persons hacking on pkg_install in pkgsrc/NetBSD, I
would
*strongly* advisy you against storing the files only in a bdb
file.
The change of major and complete corruption with bdb185 is high,
consider pulling the plug in the middle of a long update.
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 5:38:25 PM, you wrote:
GC> +1. BDB is quite easy to corrupt...
BDB isn't ATOMic, like SQL or other DB backends.
You mean ACID probably. And there are plenty of SQL databases
that aren't ACID either. (e.g. Mysql 4.x, Mysql 5.x w/o the
right kind of backing store)
-Kurt
Yes, you're right. Atomicity is the A in ACID.
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
