On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
>>
>> If you don't really NEED to run Subversion in a VM box (i.e. you have
>> Subversion as a part of your own project and run it in sandboxed
>> environment)
>> - you would be better off with native solution. Less segments in
>> chain
>> - lower
>> chance for system failure.
>
> VM's are becoming very popular. IT departments are buying very
> powerful servers these days and they don't want to dedicate it to
> one task that takes 3% of the CPU... but they do want to sandbox
> stuff to avoid conflicts as much as possible.
>
> That said... if the OP is looking for a low overhead solution to
> create a VM that only is for subversion, then I would say something
> like Debian Linux server will work just as well (with 0 license
> fees), if not better. Of course, if you don't have any *Nix admins
> on staff a Win server in a VM should work just fine.
>
Another advantage of a good VM setup is the high availability it
provides. We're running Citrix XenServer on two servers. SVN is in a
VM. An IT admin can easily move the VM from one server to another
without anyone noticing. It means that should there be a need to
shutdown the server we can do it without shutting down SVN. This is
important in globally distributed organizations like ours because
developers access Subversion 24 hours/day.
-- John
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2367824
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-07-03 17:15:48 CEST