On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote: > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer... > > In what way are you then comparing the backends? > > You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching. > > I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we should do it for > the right reasons, not by using skewed numbers.
Caching is part of the FSFS backend. One would assume that a key-value database like BDB would have its own cache, which is therefore implicitly part of the BDB back-end. I don't see how you could construe these numbers as skewed. As Lieven says -- FSFS has been steadily improving while BDB was standing still these last 6 years. IMO, if there were enough users of the BDB back-end to matter, we'd have been given incentive (through bad language on users@ ...) to do more than just keep the back-end limping along to make the testsuite work. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
