Thanks for the insight.
I laughed out loud when I read your sublime suggestion to restart the
sync. That hadn't occurred to me. (sidebar: I love atomic actions)
After clearing the svn:sync-lock property from the destination
repository, I restarted the sync and it's humming along.
Marinus Damm
email: marinus@jivesoftware.com
phone: 503-972-7501
On Nov 29, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 11/29/06, Marinus Damm <marinus@jivesoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> Trying to go from a svn 1.4.2 source to a 1.3.2 destination.
>>
>> a. Created a new empty 1.4.2 source repository, svnadmin load'ed a
>> 3.9GB
>> dump file into it.
>> b. Created a new empty 1.3.2 destination repository on another host.
>> c. svnsync init https://dest.example.com/svn2/repos
>> file:///local/svn/repos <-- works fine
>> d. svnsync sync https://dest.example.com/svn2/repos <--
>> fails after several hours
>>
>> The sync gets to around rev 15000 and then dies; command line
>> error message
>> is:
>>
>> ...
>> Copied properties for revision 15540.
>> Committed revision 15541.
>> Copied properties for revision 15541.
>> svnsync: OPTIONS request failed on '/svn2/repos'
>> svnsync: OPTIONS of '/svn2/repos': SSL negotiation failed: Cannot
>> allocate
>> memory (https://dest.example.com)
>
> As far as I can see, that's a client side error, meaning that this is
> a problem with Neon not being able to allocate more memory, or openssl
> (against which neon is linked for SSL support).
>
> Maybe Neon or svnsync forgets to deallocate some resource? It would be
> great if you or someone else could try to find out. (How? Using
> valgrind or pool-debugging?)
>
>> Both O.S.'s are CentOS 4 (clone of RedHat Enterprise Linux 4).
>> Subversion was built on the local machine in both cases.
>
>> I'm not sure where to begin looking for the problem; is the error
>> message
>> passed out of svnsync from the destination machine? Or is svnsync
>> (and neon
>> I guess) on the source machine complaining?
>
> It's the machine on which svnsync is running.
>
>> Any suggestions to relieve the condition? This will be a one-time
>> sync as
>> part of our mirroring setup, so subsequent svnsync's should be
>> much smaller
>> than this initial one. The sync is roughly 40% done (both in terms
>> of rev#s
>> and size) when it dies.
>
> I think it's safe to restart from where it left off. Does that work?
>
> bye,
>
> Erik.
Received on Wed Nov 29 18:43:45 2006