Thanks Les,
I know NFS itself can certainly be a bottleneck. However, we will be
devoting at least three shelves of disk on our NetApp 3070 which in our
standard RAID group size will make for about 38 data spindles and we will
have have 256 GB of read cache per head on a two head storage system.
Initially we dont expect compute capacity to be a problem with our SVN
setup, but we are a growing company and are planning this SVN cluster to be
scalable with the organization.
So the question remains, taking physical restraints out of the question, is
there anyone out there who knows about managing the risks assocciated with
having two or more apache/svn nodes accessing repos that are stored on a
shared NFS storage system, with the SVN DBs using FSFS.
B
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2010 10:26 AM, BD wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> The underlying disk system itself is probably the bottleneck so
> distributing access isn't likely to help performance that much anyway. I'd
> expect bigger gains from beefing up the storage unit (make the raid
> distribute over more drives, don't share those drives with other work, use a
> controller with battery-backed buffering, etc.).
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
>
Received on 2010-05-07 21:08:46 CEST