Thanks for the reply Ryan,
I'll have to look further into how locking is setup on our NetApp FAS 3070.
We were also considering using GFS to handle the locking, have you heard
anything about users having multiple svn compute nodes connecting to a repo
on GFS and using distributed lock manager?
I saw that some people were using svnsync and writethrough proxying. I was
concerned about the read-only copies keeping up during nightly builds when
our developers will often go through thousands of commits. I'll have to look
into the documentation for svnsync a little closer.
B
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Ryan Schmidt <
subversion-2010b_at_ryandesign.com> wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2010, at 10:26, BD wrote:
>
> > I'm starting a new project to consolidate all svn repos across our
> company into a single instance. Originally we looked at doing a
> active-passive cluster, but after looking at the loads on the current
> individual svn repos, we are thinking that an active-active cluster would be
> preferable.
> >
> > My question is, is it possible/safe to have two apache/svn nodes
> accessing the same repo on the same storage system, shared out via nfs v3?
> Of course the repo DB will formated with type FSFS, but we are concerned
> about data corruption with multiple nodes doing commits to the same repo.
> Does anyone have any experience using svn in this or a similar
> configuration?
>
> Hosting a repo on NFS can work, but so many people write here for help
> after trying to do so and finding it doesn't work for them. It depends on
> whether your NFS implementation supports proper locking.
>
> I've been told before that to do active-active clustering, you would want
> to have the repository data located on a cluster filesystem (e.g. Apple
> Xsan) accessed by both servers. Otherwise data corruption would indeed be a
> concern.
>
> But, these days, you could have a simpler setup with two (or more)
> standalone servers which mirror each other's contents using svnsync. Write
> requests would have to happen on a single master server only, but the
> mirrors could be configured with a writethrough proxy to make this
> transparent. You should be able to find documentation on setting these up.
>
>
Received on 2010-05-07 18:26:05 CEST