Concerning Re: svnadmin load to fsfs 9 times f
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote on 31 May 2010, 10:30, at least in part:
> On Sunday 30 May 2010, B Smith-Mannschott wrote:
> > I've never really been much of a user of the BDB back end. I
> > started with Subversion in the 1.3 time-frame and have always used
> > FSFS.
> [...]
> > BDB data isn't portable across architectures and BDB versions. It
> > seems slower. It's trickier to back up. I'm sure there are
> > operations where it performs faster than FSFS (svn log, for
> > example). But, I guess I know now why I've always preferred FSFS.
> > Does anyone actually use the BDB Subversion backend?
>
> For the record, I do, both here at work and at home. This was not a
> properly evaluated decision, but BDB has served me well since 0.27
> (i.e. long before the FSFS backend) or so and I haven't found a
> compelling reason to switch.
Glad to learn I'm not alone. ;) Dunno if this falls under the category
of "properly evaluated", yet even though I had had enough trouble
with BDB between 0.24 & 1.0 to terminate SVN usage then (actual
reason was something else though), returning only around 1.2
without any BDB issue since, I could not see an incentive in having
thousands of files around.
JH
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:
Free people, remember this maxim:
We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost.
-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
