On 1/29/07, Justin Johnson <justinjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am using FSFS. I was planning on having the filesystem mounted on
> > > two systems at the same time, but only so we can quickly fail over if
> > > one goes down. Won't the repository be corrupted if two servers are
> > > actively writing to the same repository at the same time? If not, I
> > > am confused as to how.
> > >
> >
> > It's been explained to me that the with FSFS format, the file locking with the Subversion binaries the transaction files in the FSFS directories keep things in check. But this means putting a set of Subversion binaries on each server and not the NFS mount. However, the binaries don't require much configuration. As you said, hooks scripts and other stuff involving the repositories themselves is where all the configuration occurs.
>
> Wow, that would be great! Can someone else confirm this for me and
> explain how it works or point me to something I can read about it?
> Why would this work only if the binaries aren't on the NFS mount? I
> can see the need for different configuration files in Apache due to
> different host names for the servers. Is there some other reason the
> binaries would need to be off of the NFS mount?
In addition to needing confirmation about whether multiple servers can
write to a repository on the same disk NFS mounted on all of the
servers, I am also concerned about NFS in general. The notes at
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/fsfs in the "Locking"
section indicate that there might be some issues with NFS. Can anyone
confirm or deny this? Are any issues with with FSFS repositories and
NFS/NAS, any special NFS mount options, performance issues, etc.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 30 18:49:25 2007