Updating comments on FSFS vs Berkeley DB
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
> 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.
> Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
> <blair at orcaware.com>
> Subversion training, consulting and support
> svnbook-dev mailing list
> svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
More information about the svnbook-dev