the idea is that no matter what server you use (svnserve for svn:// and
apache for http:// and https://), the server access a local hard disk for
the repo - if it has to use the network to get at it and/or you have
multiple servers trying to use the same repo, problems WILL arise eventually
file:/// should never be used except for private, single-user, local repos
if you need multiple servers, use the svnsync method described in the book:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.tk.svnsync
On 5/9/07, Ryan Schmidt <subversion-2007b@ryandesign.com> wrote:
>
> Please keep replies on the list so everyone can benefit from the
> discussion. More below:
>
> On May 9, 2007, at 08:45, David Ferguson wrote:
>
> > On 5/7/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >> On May 7, 2007, at 07:59, David Ferguson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Could you guys take a look at my plan for setting up a Subversion
> >> > server farm and let me know if you see any gotchas?
> >> >
> >> > 1. There will be six machines running svnserve, all pointing to the
> >> > same root (-r option). This root will be an NFS mount of a
> >> > directory that contains the many repositories for the projects that
> >> > this farm must serve.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Each machine will have a unique name in DNS like
> >> > svn1.mydomain.com, svn2.mydomain.com , etc. but will always be
> >> > accessed by clients through svn.mydomain.com. To provide some load
> >> > balancing, svn.mydomain.com will be an alias that will map to
> >> > specific svnX.mydomain.com servers in a round-robin fashion.
> >> >
> >> > 3. No authentication will be done (this is all behind the company
> >> > firewall and all users are trusted)
> >> >
> >> > 4. All repositories are using FSFS.
> >> >
> >> > See any issues? I am most interested in this: Is it okay to have
> >> > multiple machines running svnserve, possibly accessing the same
> >> > repository at the same time? From all I read it is, but I just
> >> > wanted to be sure.
> >>
> >> This plan sounds similar to what I've been thinking of, though having
> >> the svnserves access the repository via NFS is probably a bad idea.
> >> In my setup, I will be using a SAN, which should not have any of the
> >> problems typically associated with NFS.
> >
> > Are you kidding? I thought if I avoided BerkleyDB then I could put
> > the repository on an NFS share without trouble, regardless of what
> > access method I used (file, svnserve-daemon, svnserve-tunnel, or
> > http). I just searched the Subversion manual for "NFS" and found
> > nothing about svnserve being incompatible with NFS.
> >
> > Does svnserve through a tunnel have the same NFS problems as
> > svnserve as a daemon? We're using svnserve through tunnel right
> > now and we don't have any problems.
> >
> > So what are the "NFS safe" methods? file:// and http://??
>
> It wasn't my intention to kid. To be honest I've never used NFS for
> anything. But I have seen posts on this mailing list from people who
> had problems with repositories on NFS and the problem was resolved by
> not using NFS anymore. I do not know if there is such a thing as an
> "NFS-safe" repository access method. I also can't tell you about
> tunnels as I've never used those before either. Maybe someone else on
> the list will have more useful answers for you.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
Received on Wed May 9 23:48:47 2007