OK. You're mirroring the repository itself. Yes, I would want a
smaller repository.
Have you looked at WANdisco's products for multi-master commits?
Regards,
Blair
Brian Krusic wrote:
> While client traffic is not effected, server to sever traffic will be.
> Our needs aren't limited to simple client traffic.
>
> I'm sure smaller repos will effect sync time and our locations in Europe
> and Canada will have slave repos when the time comes (v1.5).
>
> They already have there own repos that we in the US update from as we've
> done a sort of manual load balancing approach where repo location is
> according to traffic patterns.
>
> -Brian
> On Jul 21, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>
>> Brian Krusic wrote:
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> While u r correct about serving dbs regardless version as thats what
>>> we do on some of our repos now, there are benefits to upgrading so I
>>> disagree with you.
>>> A repo we had in 1.2.3 was 50GB at the time. We converted to 1.4 and
>>> it shrank to 38GB.
>>> So yes, we do need to convert.
>>> With offices in geographically diverse regions, the leaner and meaner
>>> our dbs are, the better.
>>
>> Shrinking the repository size won't have an impact on the network
>> traffic to your clients, even if they are geographically dispersed.
>> So while it's nice to dump and load, it's not necessary.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jul 21 21:55:09 2007