Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:51:59 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Kurt Lidl <lidl@pix.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de>, Anthony Pankov <ap00@mail.ru> Subject: Re: BDB corrupt Message-ID: <48B3E83F-A165-4680-8F29-4EE6FB60D079@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4828F55E.6020407@pix.net> References: <op.uavxx8ip2n4ijf@duckjen.nextgentel.no> <20080509124308.GA596@britannica.bec.de> <9FC19AC2-DAD8-418C-8B9C-F129DEC58CEF@gmail.com> <15336578.20080512123806@mail.ru> <E394497D-2EB7-422F-92EC-6A178FBEC381@gmail.com> <4828F55E.6020407@pix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 12, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Kurt Lidl wrote: > Garrett Cooper wrote: >> On May 12, 2008, at 1:38 AM, 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. >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 01:52:46PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As one of the persons hacking on pkg_install in pkgsrc/NetBSD, I >>>>> would >>>>> *strongly* advisy you against storing the files only in a bdb >>>>> file. >>>>> The change of major and complete corruption with bdb185 is high, >>>>> consider pulling the plug in the middle of a long update. >>> >>>> Sunday, May 11, 2008, 5:38:25 PM, you wrote: >>> >>> GC> +1. BDB is quite easy to corrupt... >> BDB isn't ATOMic, like SQL or other DB backends. > > You mean ACID probably. And there are plenty of SQL databases > that aren't ACID either. (e.g. Mysql 4.x, Mysql 5.x w/o the > right kind of backing store) > > -Kurt Yes, you're right. Atomicity is the A in ACID. -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48B3E83F-A165-4680-8F29-4EE6FB60D079>