[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Checkpoint less frequently

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-02-21 18:52:48 CET

Brandon Ehle wrote:

>>> No, it's not. Requiring me to have yet another process running so
>>> that the database can be checkpointed is incredibly lame.
>>> I won't even get to the issue of what happens when the checkpoint code
>>> crashes. We'll need a watcher. Then, another watcher. No.
>> Justin, we'll need a watcher anyway -- it's the only means we have to
>> automatically unwedge a repository if a client crashes. D'you really
>> thing we can release 1.0 without fixing this totally unacceptable bug?
> I don't even think this is possible. When the needs recoverey while
> apache is running, I usually have to logon with root privileges and do
> a killall -KILL httpd, killall svnserve, then run ipcs and delete all
> the leftover locks, then I will be able to run db_recover or svnadmin
> recover. Then restart httpd & svnserve -d. We'd need one hell of a
> monitor to be able to accomplish all that after you take security into
> consideration.

You don't have to stop any servers, or anythng. Each server only has to
ask the monitor if it may open the database, and to notify it when it
closes it. When the monitor detects a crashed process, it starts denying
access to the database until all other processes have backed out, runs
recovery, then allows access again.

At least, that's the general idea.

Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 21 18:53:29 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.