Updating comments on FSFS vs Berkeley DB

[Blair Zajac]

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/