Updating comments on FSFS vs Berkeley DB

Ben Collins-Sussman sussman at red-bean.com
Sun Aug 27 20:40:40 CDT 2006

Totally agree, Blair.  We're actually in the process of doing a big
overhaul for a second edition.  We'll be sure to fix up this section!

On 8/27/06, Blair Zajac <blair at orcaware.com> wrote:
> I was reading through the FSFS vs Berkeley DB section of the book,
> and this paragraph stands out:
>          <para>The only real argument against FSFS is its relative
>            immaturity compared to Berkeley DB.  It hasn't been used or
>            stress-tested nearly as much, and so a lot of these
>            assertions about speed and scalability are just that:
>            assertions, based on good guesses.  In theory, it promises a
>            lower barrier to entry for new administrators and is less
>            susceptible to problems.  In practice, only time will
>            tell.</para>
> Besides a single word change in the first line, this was committed at
> r663 | sussman | 2004-09-20 11:56:49 -0700 (Mon, 20 Sep 2004) | 13 lines
> It's been almost two years since this has been written.
> We know a lot more about FSFS and the other Berkeley DB issues.
> Should we update the text to take into account what we now know?
> My sense is that the book likes to be agnostic with regards to this
> conversation, but common lore is that FSFS is more stable and should
> be used in production.  However, with the Berkeley DB 4.4 fixes in
> 1.4.x coming, this could also be mentioned.
> Regards,
> Blair
> --
> Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
> <blair at orcaware.com>
> Subversion training, consulting and support
> http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
> _______________________________________________
> svnbook-dev mailing list
> svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
> http://www.red-bean.com/mailman/listinfo/svnbook-dev

More information about the svnbook-dev mailing list