From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 12 18:33:08 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0443106566B for ; Mon, 12 May 2008 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ap00@mail.ru) Received: from mx0.awanti.com (mx0.awanti.com [91.190.112.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45748FC15 for ; Mon, 12 May 2008 18:33:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ap00@mail.ru) Received: from pstation (unknown [10.28.4.14]) by mx0.awanti.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FF84C054 for ; Mon, 12 May 2008 22:33:06 +0400 (MSD) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 From: Anthony Pankov X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1663320218.20080512223531@mail.ru> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200805121153.00809.jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> References: <9FC19AC2-DAD8-418C-8B9C-F129DEC58CEF@gmail.com> <15336578.20080512123806@mail.ru> <200805121153.00809.jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re[2]: BDB corrupt X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anthony Pankov List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:33:09 -0000 So, can anyone make clear about BDB 1.86 (which is a part of base system). When 1. there is no need for SQL 2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode (key=>value pair) 3. reading/writing = 60%/40% the first idea is to use BDB. Because BDB: 1. do not need additional installation 2. is part of base system which mean it is mature, reliable and stable (otherwise why BDB is still a part of FreeBSD?) Discussion "Adding .db support to pkg_tools" reveal BDB ability to corrupt data. Can anyone suggest BDB alternative (not GPLed)? Monday, May 12, 2008, 1:53:00 PM, you wrote: JM> On Monday 12 May 2008 10:38, Anthony Pankov wrote: >> Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86). >> >> Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which >> guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB under >> high load? >> >> It is important for me because of using BDB in my project. JM> Interesting. I would have thought that the two processes "find out advantages JM> and problems of proposed solutions" and "choose a solution" had a natural JM> ordering other than the one you seem to be using. JM> Jonathan -- Best regards, Anthony mailto:ap00@mail.ru