FSFS or Berkeley DB

[Sean Moss-Pultz <se...@moss-pultz.com>]

Hopefully some of you guys could help guide me on this one....

I've read the document http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/info/fsfs and it 
sounds much better than running Berkeley DB. But then comes the line 
about immature code. This normally wouldn't really bother but we are 
running Subversion as our *only* version control system for about 100 
engineers. Like everyone, our code is extremely important. I would be 
beheaded for proposing a radical new file system that corrupted our 
data a later time :)

Yes either way I would have backups but restoring from backups can take 
a long time. We have many repositories.

So my question is this. Would you use FSFS or Berkeley DB if you were 
me?

Thanks!

Sean

Re: FSFS or Berkeley DB

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

William Nagel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Well, no one wants to see a potential Subversion user decapitated, so
> I'd have to suggest Berkeley DB.  ;-)
>
> In all seriousness, you're probably safe with FSFS, but given how new
> it is, you might want to wait for version 1.1 to have a little time out
> in full release before you give FSFS a go.  Depending on how bad a
> restoration from backup would be for you, it might even be prudent to
> give it until 1.2.
>
> Of course, if you have lots of repositories, the probability that more
> than one would go down at a time is pretty remote.
>
> Basically, I think it comes down to this question: Do the benefits of
> FSFS over Berkely DB justify the (possibly) increased risk of
> repository failure for you?  In the case of my company, I'm not
> planning to use FSFS for any of our repositories until it's had a bit
> more time to shake out---and we're smaller than you.  So, I think my
> answer is that I would probably go with Berkeley DB if I were you.

That said, on Mac OS X, BDB appears particularly unstable, and you would 
probably be better off with FSFS.

Max.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: FSFS or Berkeley DB

[William Nagel <bi...@stagelogic.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Well, no one wants to see a potential Subversion user decapitated, so 
I'd have to suggest Berkeley DB.  ;-)

In all seriousness, you're probably safe with FSFS, but given how new 
it is, you might want to wait for version 1.1 to have a little time out 
in full release before you give FSFS a go.  Depending on how bad a 
restoration from backup would be for you, it might even be prudent to 
give it until 1.2.

Of course, if you have lots of repositories, the probability that more 
than one would go down at a time is pretty remote.

Basically, I think it comes down to this question: Do the benefits of 
FSFS over Berkely DB justify the (possibly) increased risk of 
repository failure for you?  In the case of my company, I'm not 
planning to use FSFS for any of our repositories until it's had a bit 
more time to shake out---and we're smaller than you.  So, I think my 
answer is that I would probably go with Berkeley DB if I were you.

- -Bill


On Aug 26, 2004, at 10:20 PM, Sean Moss-Pultz wrote:

> Hopefully some of you guys could help guide me on this one....
>
> I've read the document http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/info/fsfs and it 
> sounds much better than running Berkeley DB. But then comes the line 
> about immature code. This normally wouldn't really bother but we are 
> running Subversion as our *only* version control system for about 100 
> engineers. Like everyone, our code is extremely important. I would be 
> beheaded for proposing a radical new file system that corrupted our 
> data a later time :)
>
> Yes either way I would have backups but restoring from backups can 
> take a long time. We have many repositories.
>
> So my question is this. Would you use FSFS or Berkeley DB if you were 
> me?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sean
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBLrKESwe0AHUdEwQRArzqAKDE7H+FfwCSrGnLxEOJ69ls8z5wzQCdEx5W
BG2kRgna0rmsGtDZeG0cBcM=
=2STM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: FSFS or Berkeley DB

[Patrick Dean Rusk <PR...@foliage.com>]

"Sean Moss-Pultz" <se...@moss-pultz.com> wrote...
> Yes either way I would have backups but restoring from backups can take
> a long time. We have many repositories.

    That's true, but nothing says you have to wait until there's a disaster
to do a restore from backups. You can put in a practice of bringing a backup
repository up-to-date every week with the prior week's changes. That way,
when you have a disaster, you only need to load a week's worth of revisions
into the backup repository to get back up and running. Maybe 15 minutes?

    You could even have two backups repositories, one BDB and one FSFS, if
you're paranoid about either format.

Patrick Rusk




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org