On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:47:31PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> So thinking all this through, I agree svnsync does not make sense if
> you are hosting a repository on a SAN and trying to connect multiple
> svn servers to it. But it sounds like it would work fine, if you
> simply don't use svnsync. Configure one server to be the master (let
> it accept write requests). Configure the other servers to be slaves
> (read-only, and proxy any incoming write requests to the master). All
> servers point to the same repository data on the SAN and it can't get
> corrupted because only one server is writing to it. Sound ok?
Ah, I see what you mean.
Well, I suppose this would work, yes. You are essentially using
the write-through proxy feature to implement load balancing for
incoming TCP connections.
But it isn't necessary because the SAN should support file locking
so multiple concurrent servers writing to the same repository
synchronise write operations anyway.
E.g. consider offering both http:// and svn:// access to the repository.
This is rarely done but it is a supported use case. In your scheme,
only http:// works because the write-through proxy feature is specific
Received on 2012-02-11 00:15:13 CET