Re: High Availability Recommendation
From: Tom Mornini <tmornini_at_engineyard.com>
Date: 2007-01-31 22:47:13 CET
I was a poster in the previously mentioned thread.
We currently have 25 repositories on a GFS filesystem being served on
We've not yet seen any evidence of corruption in any way, shape or
-- -- Tom Mornini, CTO -- Engine Yard, Ruby on Rails Hosting -- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability -- (866) 518-YARD (9273) On Jan 31, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Justin Johnson 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 >> > >> > Yeah, I had mentioned that as well one time back in a posting >> here, I was >> > quickly told that wasn't the case any more and that the book >> needs to be >> > updated there because of FSFS. >> > >> > Johnathan >> >> Here's an earlier thread that dealt with clustering of >> Subversion. In particular check the responses from Ryan Schmidt >> and Garrett Rooney. Hope this helps, >> >> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/BrowseList? >> list=users&by=thread&from=518292 >> > > Thanks for your research Johnathan. > > Is there anyone on this list who can confirm that multiple servers > with the same disk mounted (NFS/NAS or SAN) can be load balanced where > they potentially simultaneously write to the same repository without > corrupting it? This would be wonderful, but I'm not comfortable doing > so without someone on the Subversion project saying it would work. > Some clarification on Garrett Rooney's comments on that thread about > dav related files or Tom Mornini's use of AoE/GFS would be helpful as > well. Maybe I'll have to reply to that post to get more information. > > Thanks, > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org > For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.comReceived on Wed Jan 31 22:50:42 2007
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.