BDB corrupt

[Mike Meyer]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:44:06 +0400
Anthony Pankov <ap00 at mail.ru> wrote:

> 
> Monday, Mike Meyer May 12, 2008, 11:24:30 PM, you wrote:
> 
> MM> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov <ap00 at 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
> 
> MM> BDB in the base system is mature, reliable and stable *for what it's
> MM> used for in the base system.* So long as your requirements are covered
> MM> by that usage, you'll be ok.
> 
> MM> The uses I know of for BDB in the base system all consist of databases
> MM> of relatively small items that are changed infrequently, and usually
> MM> with a locking mechanism. From what you've said, this doesn't describe
> MM> your requirements.
> 
> MM> More importantly, from what other people are saying, your requirements
> MM> are ones for which it's known that BDB is *not* reliable, or otherwise
> MM> unsuitable. In particular, an effort is underway to allow parallel
> MM> ports builds, which implies concurrent access to the database, which
> MM> is a known source of problems for BDB.
> 
> MM>           <mike
> 
> My requirements is
> 1. there is no need for SQL
> 2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode
> 3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
> 
> With BDB
> clause 1 - satisfied
> clause 3 - satisfied (databases of relatively small items that are
> changed infrequently).

Actually, I don't think you get #3, because my wording was poor. The
things in the base system are databases of small items, where the
*database* is changed infrequently. I think what you have is a
database of small items where the *items* are changed infrequently,
but the database itself changes frequently.

    <mike
-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>		http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.

O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org