Thanks for your help. The systems here use Windows almost exclusively,
although I don't think that's guaranteed that the filesystems will be the
same in the future. Given the high value of the data we'll be storing in the
repos, less trouble is certainly better.
I had thought about keeping the repo at the local workstations and simply
syncing the backup regularly; that's looking increasingly like the best
compromise according to our work environment. Currently, the repos will be
relatively small, but - yes - we'll need to think more about how to
appropriate deal with a large repo. Dumping and compressing it will probably
suffice for a very long time.
Anyways, thanks very much for your time. It's definitely appreciated.
James
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM, James An <james_at_jamesan.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've created an FSFS repository and would like to put it in a remote
> network location that is regularly backed-up.
>
> I've read that it's poor practice to directly access repos over a network
> and that I should set up svnserve or Apache. The SVN book<http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.2/svn.reposadmin.create.html>mentions that network shares are bad for BDB repos, but doesn't really
> comment on its use for FSFS ones. Some people say there are potential
> problems for network repos that are accessible by multiple users.
>
> If the FSFS repo (on a network share) is restricted so only a single user
> can access it, are there any risks to directly accessing the repo with an
> SVN client? If I extend the permissions so that multiple users can read-only
> access the repo, but only one user can write to it, are there any additional
> risks? If so, is there any way to mitigate those risks without a local SVN
> server at that location?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1221811
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-25 05:02:36 CET