+1 -Hyrum
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>wrote: > +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 >>> >>>
