Re: DFS alternative for linux

I don't think you're understanding our environment. We have a code folder and an image folder. Both get checked out to the developers working copy and get worked on, branched, etc. When the working copies get checked out on production, however, the code goes on the web app servers and images go on the images server. Users of the website upload images through the daily use of the site, which I eventually check into the repository.

When a user uploads an image, the image gets synced between the 2 image servers. This happens days or even weeks before I might go in and commit these images into the repo. These images need to be available on the second server as soon as possible, as the servers are load balanced, and we don't want users to are broken images.

So in this scenario there is no sort of svn update solution that I can see (short of updating my code to do a commit everytime an image is uploaded and use some sort of post-commit hook to force an update.)

Its seems there were some solutions suggested as far as what filesystems to use, but it doesn't look like a lot of them are ready for production use. I will go through the list at some point and see if I can spot a winner, but the documentation on most projects seems scarce and vague, and I don't think I'll be able to make a decision without installing a whole bunch of the choices and trying them out.

That is unless someone here who understands what I'm looking for would know something that would be perfect for the job.

Thanks for everyones help so far,

Russ
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Harold <tgh@tgharold.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:50:59
To:Ruslan Sivak <rsivak@istandfor.com>
Cc:users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: DFS alternative for linux

Ruslan Sivak wrote:
> svn update won't work for things like people updating images to the
> webserver. The images get uploaded into the working copy, and
> eventually i go through and check them into the repo. So the only thing
> that might work here would be rsync, but like I mentioned before, that
> would be pretty slow.

Why are you the bottleneck in getting things into the repository? (That
sounds harsh, but I suspect that your workflow might be better if it was
changed slightly?)

Why not let each user add things directly to the repository in a testing
branch and then merge their new images across to the mainline trunk that
holds the production version of the web server?

I haven't tried WebDAV yet (so I can't speak for speed). We went with
PuTTY+TortoiseSVN over SSH+SVN for our repository. Users have local
working copies and push their changes to the central repository server.
Received on Mon Oct 16 15:28:25 2006