I have a few repositories running on Berkley DB for a few years now.
Never had a single problem.
Some are running on very small Linux machines with very little memory
and old processor and BDB was never an issue. But then again, the only
time this machine went down was when the power-supply died. Other that
that it''s always up, so never caused any problem with the DB.
In the past hot backup was only part of BDB IIRC. But it''s now
available to FSFS as well, so not an advantage anymore.
I think both are stable enough to trust your code to, so it''s a matter
of what''s more comfortable.
Guy.
On 9/18/06, Joe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE
<rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> I''m moving my Subversion repository to a new server. The old
server uses
> Berkeley DB/Sleepycat and if memory serves, it was a lot of effort to
> set that up -- so I think I''ll try FSFS. Does anybody use BDB and
prefer
> that over FSFS? Or had any problems with FSFS? (I never had any problems
> with BDB, performance or otherwise, btw.)
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> --
> Posted via ruby-forum.com.
>
> >
>
--
Family management on rails: famundo.com - coming soon!
My development related blog: devblog.famundo.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---