[This thread was originally started on the users list.
A snippet is attached below for reference.
Daniel encouraged me to bring it to the dev list.]
I know using traditional server backup software has never been
recommended on fsfs repositories. However, since the server
never rewrote any files after the transaction was finalized, the
only previous issues with using a snapshot based backup mechanism
would be that the current file was out of sync with reality. This
could be easily fixed, by manually modifying the current file
to reference the previous revision number if needed.
Daniel mentioned this is no longer the case since revprop packing
using a sqlite database is not guaranteed to be consistent
while it is open. In my opinion this is a huge regression from
previous functionality. Using hotcopy or svnsync is not practical
for larger environments.
I would love to have revprop packing, but not at the cost of
potentially disabling the use of traditional backup software.
Is there a way to disable fsfs revprop packing, or at least have
it function in an atomic way like the regular rev packing?
On a similar note, could a server or application crash now leave
a 1.7 repository in an inconsistent and unrecoverable state?
Thanks!
Kevin R.
kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote on 06/30/2011 10:03:52 AM:
> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote on 06/30/2011 09:24:56 AM:
> > kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote on Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 09:06:28
-0500:
> > > Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote on 06/30/2011 07:35:36
AM:
> > > > I'm going to say this even more clearly:
> > > >
> > > > If you backup a repository by copying its files while a server is
> > > > running, the backup may be created corrupted.
> > > >
> > > > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.7#single-db
(sic)
> > >
> > > This does not seem point to any additional warnings about the server
> > > side yet (only the client)...
> >
> > By the way: that's exactly why I added the "(sic)" marker after the
URL
> > --- to indicate that it's not the wrong URL, even though it talks
about
> > the wc and this thread is about the server's backend.
> >
> > I suppose the text could be made clearer.
>
> I was wondering about the (sic). Yes, if that portion applies to
> the server as well, it needs to have the heading changed to
> "server and client" like the rest of the sections, or I think this
> statement might warrant it's own section for the server only impact.
>
> (And I'll raise this issue on the dev list. I'd love to have
> revprop packing, but not at this cost...)
>
> Kevin R.
Received on 2011-06-30 17:30:55 CEST