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

Re: High Availability Recommendation

From: Tom Mornini <tmornini_at_engineyard.com>
Date: 2007-01-31 23:10:53 CET

I just decided to give it a try.

My logic was pretty simple:

1) FSFS works well on filesystems that have good locking semantics.
GFS is POSIX locking compliant.
2) Apache mod_dav_svn works well in a multi-process environment on a
single box without IPC.
3) With GFS and correct locking, why would it matter if the processes
were on two boxes rather than one?

-- 
-- Tom Mornini, CTO
-- Engine Yard, Ruby on Rails Hosting
-- Reliability, Ease of Use, Scalability
-- (866) 518-YARD (9273)
On Jan 31, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Justin Johnson wrote:
> On 1/31/07, Tom Mornini <tmornini@engineyard.com> wrote:
>> I was a poster in the previously mentioned thread.
>>
>> We currently have 25 repositories on a GFS filesystem being served on
>> two nodes via hardware load balancer for high availability using
>> Subversion 1.4.2, Apache 2.2.3 and mod_dav_svn.
>>
>> We've not yet seen any evidence of corruption in any way, shape or
>> form. We've been using this solution for about 3 months.
>
> Interesting.  So I assume a filesystem designed for clusters is
> critical for this.  Did you get confirmation from someone that
> concurrent writes to a FSFS repository from different servers would
> not cause any problems, or did you just decide to give it a try and
> see what happens?
>
> Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 31 23:11:20 2007

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