+1! -- justin On Jan 5, 2013 10:40 AM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 >> >>
