So, can anyone make clear about BDB 1.86 (which is a part of base system).
When 1. there is no need for SQL 2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode (key=>value pair) 3. reading/writing = 60%/40% the first idea is to use BDB. Because BDB: 1. do not need additional installation 2. is part of base system which mean it is mature, reliable and stable (otherwise why BDB is still a part of FreeBSD?) Discussion "Adding .db support to pkg_tools" reveal BDB ability to corrupt data. Can anyone suggest BDB alternative (not GPLed)? Monday, May 12, 2008, 1:53:00 PM, you wrote: JM> On Monday 12 May 2008 10:38, Anthony Pankov wrote: >> Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86). >> >> Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which >> guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB under >> high load? >> >> It is important for me because of using BDB in my project. JM> Interesting. I would have thought that the two processes "find out advantages JM> and problems of proposed solutions" and "choose a solution" had a natural JM> ordering other than the one you seem to be using. JM> Jonathan -- Best regards, Anthony mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
