On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:43:08 -0500
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 07:17:32PM -0500, Alec Berryman wrote:
> > 
> > No.  Perhaps I should have been more clear - yes, you've lost a lot if
> > you're using BDB, but if you're using FSFS you're only losing one
> > commit.  FSFS uses a file to represent each revision.  Yes, that will
> 
> Oof.  Tens of thousands of files, times one filesystem fragment per
> revision (many of our files have hundreds of revisions by now).  I can see
> where _that's_ heading (and it's sure not pretty) The BDB backend made our
> repository four times as big -- it sounds like FSFS would be much, much
> worse.
> 
> I will repeat my question of some months ago: can anyone actually give an
> example of a repository with anywhere near as many files and revisions as
> ours, with a couple of hundred active developers who semi-regularly
> check in, and well over 100 simultaneous checkouts at peak periods, that
> is managed by Subversion?

The Subversion team have a plans to support an SQL backend as SVN
database holder. IMHO this can solve many issues with both BDB and FSFS
in a way appropriate for the NetBSD.

--
Mishka.