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