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

Re: Server Specifications and Architecture Question

From: Ryan Schmidt <subversion-2004_at_ryandesign.com>
Date: 2005-01-22 03:27:59 CET

On 21.01.2005, at 20:43, David Ripton wrote:

> On 2005.01.21 10:45:44 +0000, Kris Syverstad wrote:
>> Can SVN use our SAN for storage? (We are two weeks out from our SAN
>> being up, otherwise I would just try it...)
>
> Even with FSFS, I'd to put the repository on a local drive rather than
> a
> networked filesystem if at all possible. Why add the network overhead
> and the extra potential locking bugs if only the SVN server needs to
> see
> the files?

As I understand it, the point of a Storage Area Network (SAN) is to
pool storage resources. Rather than having a mail server with a hard
drive to store mail data, and a MySQL server with a hard drive to store
database data, and a Subversion server with a hard drive to store
repository data, you have all these servers store their data on one
central SAN. The arguments are that you never know how much space you
really need for mail or database or repository. If you overestimate,
you've wasted space and therefore money; if you underestimate, your
system blows up. With a SAN you can use your storage space most
usefully. SANs are usually connected to servers using higher-speed
cabling than Ethernet (fiber channel for example) so that there is no
network overhead to speak about. And I would assume that since SANs are
designed for exactly this kind of thing they would have a solution for
any locking issues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 22 03:30:15 2005

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