Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 From: Anthony Pankov <ap00@mail.ru> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re[2]: BDB corrupt Message-ID: <1663320218.20080512223531@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <200805121153.00809.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1663320218.20080512223531>