[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Active-Active Clustering with Subversion

From: <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 12:09:47 -0500

BD <ccice05_at_gmail.com> wrote on 05/10/2010 09:52:39 AM:
> Thats a very interesting way of looking at this problem. It does
> make sense that multiple commit processes coming from the same
> machine really wouldnt be that different from the question I was
> asking. I guess from here I'll have to do some testing somehow, with
> nfs in the mix and see if I can purposly corrupt data by running
> many commit requests from two separate apache nodes. But if what
> your saying is right, it sounds like i shouldnt have much in the way
> of problems.

Not to get offtrack again, but have you ever thought of just using
more cores/cpus in one physical server instead of multiple physical
servers? Yes, you lose hardware failover, but you do not risk any
potential bizarre data corruption issues caused by multiple writers
on NFS.

I have seen near saturation on dual 1Gb network links on a dual
cpu/dual core svn server without using NFS for storage. (Disk
I/O is on a separate SAN fiber network.) I would hate to go
back to network based Disk I/O...

Kevin R.
Received on 2010-05-10 19:10:22 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.