On Sep 29, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Marc wrote:
> Thanks to everyone else for these insights... VERY helpful indeed.
> At this
> point, I am going to change my plans here:
> Instead of putting our repositor(ies) on the hosting servers, and
> the repositor(ies), the staging sites, and the live sites, I am
> going to
> move ahead with putting a dedicated repository server right here in
> office. It will be a single repository, with a trunk for EACH
> website for
> which we do the development work, and we will stage the sites on our
> internal staging server. The live sites will still be working
> copies of our
> local repository.
For ease of deployment, I'd definitely recommend the repositories be
hosted where they're available on a public IP address!
Rather than working copies, I'd recommend exports, but to each his
> My question to everyone is, does anyone see a problem with a
> "this large"? I mean, when we load up all our sites into it, it's
> going to
> be HUGE. And it'll just grow larger with the revisions. How large
> it be allowed to grow? (server has 300GB RAID 1 right now...)
Subversion repositories grow quite efficiently, as it uses many
methods to reduce storage space. There are a lot of repositories in
the world with a *lot* of code in them (think Apache Software
Foundation) and no trouble.
> And at some point, I'm sure I'll need to reduce the amount of
> history for
> each trunk... Is anyone else managing a single large repo? At what
> point do
> you decide to remove some of the early historical tags/trunk versions?
I don't even think there are ways of doing this. Disks are cheap, but
the ability to keep all history is priceless!
> Lastly... The server I was going to dedicate to this repository is
> an unused FreeBSD server. I'm still cutting my teeth with FreeBSD,
> but know
> my way around okay. Setting up subversion on Windows was a SNAP.
> Given the
> size of the repository being proposed, I assume there's going to be
> a lot of
> files, and we all know how well Windows deals with a lot of
> files... But I
> definitely know Windows Servers better. Should I leave it as a
> server for the purpose of it being great with large directories
> (and just
> great in general), or wipe it and put Windows 2003 Server on it for
> purpose of eliminating an area of inefficiency for myself? Will
> pretty much choke on a repository with 70 websites in it?
Your call. I'd choose a *nix, and I'd suggest you'd be wise to do so,
but not everyone will see it that way.
P.S. You haven't mentioned backup in your plans anywhere...
-- Tom Mornini
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Sep 30 04:56:11 2006