Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:24:30 -0400 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Anthony Pankov <ap00@mail.ru> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BDB corrupt Message-ID: <20080512152430.3720683e@mbook.local> In-Reply-To: <1663320218.20080512223531@mail.ru> References: <op.uavxx8ip2n4ijf@duckjen.nextgentel.no> <9FC19AC2-DAD8-418C-8B9C-F129DEC58CEF@gmail.com> <15336578.20080512123806@mail.ru> <200805121153.00809.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> <1663320218.20080512223531@mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov <ap00@mail.ru> wrote: > Because BDB: > 1. do not need additional installation > 2. is part of base system which mean it is mature, reliable and stable BDB in the base system is mature, reliable and stable *for what it's used for in the base system.* So long as your requirements are covered by that usage, you'll be ok. The uses I know of for BDB in the base system all consist of databases of relatively small items that are changed infrequently, and usually with a locking mechanism. From what you've said, this doesn't describe your requirements. More importantly, from what other people are saying, your requirements are ones for which it's known that BDB is *not* reliable, or otherwise unsuitable. In particular, an effort is underway to allow parallel ports builds, which implies concurrent access to the database, which is a known source of problems for BDB. <mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080512152430.3720683e>