Is "+1" too short of a response? :-) On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> For the following reasons > > - FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years, > since 1.2. > > - Looking at commit history, I've not seen a single (functional or > performance) improvement, beyond a few bug fixes, in the BDB backend in at > least two years. The last significant change that I'm aware of was released > in 1.4 (support for BDB 4.4. and DB_REGISTER) back in 2006. In effect, BDB > is in "barely maintained" mode whereas interesting things are happening to > FSFS all the time. > > - I cannot remember seeing a BDB-related bug report in a month of > Sundays (meaning that it's either rock-solid, or not used). > > - The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS > - timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac: > - FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s > - BDB: real 35m17.766s, user 15m28.395s, sys 11m58.824s > > I propose that we: > > - Declare the BDB backend deprecated in 1.8, adding appropriate > warnings when it's used or manipulated (to svnadmin?) > > - Stop supporting it (including bug fixes) in 1.9 > > - Completely remove the BDB-related code in 1.10 (I'm making an > assumption that we'll have the FSv2 API and releated refactoring of FSFS by > then, and at least a draft experimental FSv2 implementation). > > > I realize I'm raising this question at a time when we should be focusing > on branching 1.8. On the other hand, this release may be a good opportunity > to deprecate the Berkeley DB filesystem. > > > -- > Branko Čibej > Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com > >
