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

Re: Keeping a hot/live FSFS repo for failover

From: Kyle Kline <kyle.kline_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2006-10-30 17:53:54 CET

Thanks all for the responses. SVNSync works well for this purpose.

A quick Q though -- I notice that when locally run on the mirror side
(backup repo server), the svnsync also seems to run the post-commit script
hook (desired behavior for me, I append to a dump file) -- ie
svnsync sync file:///c:/svn/myrepo

However, if I trigger the sync from the primary (like in a post-commit), the
post-commit script does not seem to be run on the remote mirror box -- ie
  svnsync sync http://svnbackup.domain.com/myrepo

Any thoughts? Or is that for a separate thread?

On 10/25/06, Jared Hardy <jaredhardy@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/06, John Waycott <javajohn@cox.net> wrote:
> > This sounds very similar to what Wandisco provides. We haven't tried
> > their product, but we are considering it for the future.
> > -- John
> Wandisco is probably a little too much for our production -- we only
> really have one developer outside of our immediate region, and he's
> only two timezones away. It seems like a simple "reverse proxy" like
> pound [http://www.apsis.ch/pound/] would work, provided it could be
> hacked to route per HTTP request type rather than just per URL. The
> documentation seems to indicate it is intended to be used per-URL, but
> pound is GNU, and such a great feature may be worth the coding time...
> Thinking further, one possible use could be keeping a local
> reverse-proxy active on each client. Each client could also run an svn
> server locally, and be an svnsync target. Local requests would go
> through the proxy, and read-only requests would all go to the local
> server. Only write requests, like lock and commit, would be routed to
> the main server.
> Given this possible configuration, this would mean a lot of
> svnsync targets per main server (roughly 50:1 at our office). Are
> there any performance metrics or estimates of svnsync push overhead as
> opposed to updates? I'm just blindly assuming one svnsync push per
> commit per client is less burdensome, than the current possibility of
> multiple updates per revision per client.
> Of course, having a WC cache based on FSFS, improving svnsync to
> allow write actions to any server in a sync pool (perhaps with some
> internal forwarder), or allowing for automated cross-repository merges
> would all be better (and complimentary) solutions. I just find all
> these personally harder to code than proxys. ;)
> :) Jared
> > Jared Hardy wrote:
> > > That's an interesting fail-over clustering option for Subversion
> > > repository commit access. One possibility I'm interested in, that this
> > > option brings to mind, would be a Subversion cluster proxy front-end,
> > > that just redirects requests to several back-end Subversion servers
> > > from any given client.
> > > At any point in time, the front-end would know the current active
> > > Commit server, but any read-only actions like Update or Checkout could
> > > just be directed to any available mirror, in a load-balancing fashion.
> > > The front-end servers could be fail-over clustered as well, to
> > > maximize availability. They could even serve as arbitrators to help
> > > determine the best current Commit server.
> > > Perhaps every user site could host their own front-end/proxy
> > > servers, and each front-end could factor latency into its load-balance
> > > choices, so available LAN mirrors would usually be chosen over remote
> > > mirrors for any read-only actions. Commit server responsibility could
> > > even be shifted on a schedule, based on predictable geographical usage
> > > pattern changes. Just imagine -- each developer site could have its
> > > own clustered mirror and front-end set (possibly in the same boxes),
> > > so all read-only operations would behave at LAN speed, where only
> > > Commits would depend on primary server WAN connection speeds. Each
> > > site could have the current Commit server moved closer to them during
> > > their peak commit times. That would be awesome!
> > >
> > > Does anyone know any current way to implement such a front-end?
> > >
> > > :) Jared
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 30 17:56:12 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.