[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: Justin Johnson <justinjohnson_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-01-31 23:17:12 CET

On 1/31/07, Tom Mornini <tmornini@engineyard.com> wrote:
> 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?

Makes sense. I'll have to see if Solaris CFS would be work for this. Thanks!

>
> 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 23:17:40 2007

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