On 01/07/2013 06:12 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net > <mailto:cmpil...@collab.net>> wrote: > > hosted elsewhere for them. The BDB backend (thanks to improvements to the > Berkeley DB library itself) is much more stable today than it was when we > first started this project, so it's quite possible that we don't hear > noise > > > That's quite surprising. My understanding from the Sleepycat/Oracle team > way back when was that our core usage of BDB was wrong and would never be > properly supported by them. Have they embraced multiple reader/writer > processes now, or do they still advocate that having a single-process is the > only Right Way(tm)? -- justin
Subversion's core usage of BDB arguably helped to advance the state of the Berkeley DB art. Multi-process support has been officially part of the Berkeley DB API since at least the 4.4 release (Branko will remember the original DB_REGISTER work, I'm sure). And just few years ago I was even having private conversations in which ex-Sleepycat folk were trying to urge the Subversion project to further embrace Berkeley DB, specifically its built-in database replication support. Single-process (via a brokering daemon) is still the recommended approach, of course, but my understanding is that it's no longer considered the Only Right Way. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
