Updating comments on FSFS vs Berkeley DB
blair at orcaware.com
Sun Aug 27 18:41:42 CDT 2006
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
More information about the svnbook-dev