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

Re: multiple svn front-ends, single SAN repo volume

From: Bruce Lysik <blysik_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:24:38 -0800 (PST)

The current storage isn't on the SAN, so yes, we believe the new storage will be faster.  It's already many repositories, not a single one, so we're already in good shape there.   -- Bruce Z. Lysik <blysik_at_yahoo.com> ________________________________ From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com> To: Bruce Lysik <blysik_at_yahoo.com> Cc: "users_at_subversion.apache.org" <users_at_subversion.apache.org> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:50 PM Subject: Re: multiple svn front-ends, single SAN repo volume On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Bruce Lysik <blysik_at_yahoo.com> wrote: > We have a single server installation which is currently not fast enough. > > The LB pair + 3 svn front-ends + SAN storage is not strictly for > performance, but also for reliability.  Scaling vertically would probably > solve performance problems in the short term, but still wouldn't address > single points of failure. > > Thanks for all the responses to this thread, it's very educational. Is the current storage on the san?  If not, putting it there with fail-over svn servers fixes the reliability issue without introducing new locking issues.  And if the san is faster than the local disk it may help with speed as well.    Does it all have to be in a single repository?  If not, moving different parts to different svn servers spreads the load without sharing the same transaction lock. --   Les Mikesell     lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
Received on 2012-02-11 18:25:15 CET

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