{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub12vlytlltjj7g3s227u9jtx2g8qtsu7gscynnn99k808ydr4vygcqvdqa4q","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub12vlytlltjj7g3s227u9jtx2g8qtsu7gscynnn99k808ydr4vygcqvdqa4q","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-26\n📝 Original message:On 2015/10/23 03:30, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Thursday 22 Oct 2015 17:26:42 Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e It was noted that leveldb is unmaintained, and this is part of researching\n\u003e\u003e alternatives that are maintained and reliable.\n\u003e \n\u003e Apart from it being unmaintained, any links to what are problems with levelDB?\n\nWhile not exactly the most rigorous link,\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LevelDB#Bugs_and_Reliability seems like an\nokay place to start. One thing I can attest to is that, when Armory used\nLevelDB (0.8 - 0.92, IIRC), quite a few users had DB corruption issues,\nparticularly on Windows. Even when a switch to LMDB occurred for 0.93,\nloads of complaints would come in from users whose LevelDB-based Core\nDBs would fail. I know that the guy who moved Armory over to LMDB would\nlove to have more time in the day so that he could write a Core patch\nthat does the same. It's a very sore spot for him.\n\n(FWIW, LMDB seems to work quite nicely, at least once you patch up the\nsource a little bit. The latest version is also compatible with Core's\ncross-compiling scheme. I'd love to see it added to Core one day.)\n\nDoug"}