On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:59 AM- Feb 26, 2008, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Levy <andy.levy_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> of course we'd like to use the most robust mechanism for access
>>> and of course we'd prefer it if users can't delete the repository
>>> but we're also trying to make Subversions performance palatable to
>>> our user-base, which is proving to be a challenge..
>
> Andy> As I said in my earlier response, safety should take priority
> Andy> over speed when talking about a system like Subversion. There
> Andy> is a tradeoff that has to be made, but IMHO that analysis
> Andy> shouldn't include leaving the door open to have the entire
> Andy> repository deleted by an errant keystroke on the part of any
> Andy> user.
>
> ... or messed up. Deletion of a whole repository is easy to detect.
> Grab a backup and you're back in business (minus some hours of work,
> of course).
>
> The nastier problem is a user error, or application/OS error, that
> scribbles on the repository in a non-obvious way. That might leave
> you with bad data, or a missing commit, or other issues. Depending on
> the specifics, it might go undetected for a long time. Perhaps long
> enough that you no longer have backups far enough back...
>
> I always use svn:// access for everything, for a repository that's
> well over 10 GB, the working directory tends to be several GB.
> Checkout is a bit of a wait, but you only do that a few times per
> year. The rest is quite acceptable. Worst case is about the same
> speed as CVS, best case is much faster (and functionaly vastly
> superior!)
>
> paul
>
well i think everyone should have an svnsync backup repos chugging
away in the back
ground for this very reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-26 20:17:35 CET