Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

Ian Barwick wrote:
> flat-file based backend ... and the docs mention possible issues with
scalability.

My impression from being on the Subversion mailing lists:

The FSFS backend (flat-file system) scalability issues remain largely
theoretical. In practice, it appears to work at least as well as BDB.

Some performance issues with having many small files as part of the
back-end repository implementation (which FSFS does) are more likely to
manifest themselves on some filesystems that have trouble with that
condition. Such filesystems seem to mainly exist for Windows. Unix
systems seem much more immune to that type of degradation.

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS
repository is only 260MB,

BDB or FSFS back-end? FSFS seems to require less space. (The BDB
backend tends to pre-allocate space though, so maybe there was a big
jump, but then growth will slow markedly, so making a comparison for a
repository that will continue to grow is difficult.)

If you are interested in some significant-sized projects that are known
to use Subversion, some are listed on the testimonials page:
http://subversion.tigris.org/propaganda.html

I'm just a happy user of both Subversion and PosgreSQL.

-Travis