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