Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 10 June 2010 06:34, Richard England <rlengland_at_verizon.net
> <mailto:rlengland_at_verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2010 01:48 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Richard England wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
>>> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
>>> using FSFS.
>>>
>>> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
>>>
>> You can easily have multiple concurrent accesses even without running two
>> Apaches, e.g. concurrent file accesses by different users on the same
>> machine, different svn+ssh sessions, multiple svnserve instances spawned by
>> [x]inetd etc.
>>
>> In other words, it works.
>>
>> Uli
>>
>>
>
> Andy, the rationale is to allow a team to migrate from one server to
> another over time rather than forcing them to move their working
> copies before it makes sense in their development process. They are
> aware they can use "svn switch --relocate" to update the working
> copes but this would make it a little more palatable for them.
>
> Than you Andy, and Uli.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /~~R/
>
>
>
> Why not just have the old server issue a 301/302 to the new server
> location (I can never remember which is moved permanently)?
I haven't tried it, but you should also be able to use apache's ProxyPass or a
RewriteRule that triggers a proxy to the new server to make it completely
transparent.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
Received on 2010-06-10 19:12:34 CEST