On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 12:46:06PM -0400, Myron A. Semack wrote:
> > If you don't pack and hotcopy concurrently, it's perfectly safe.
> > If you pack and hotcopy concurrently, it's almost safe.
> > There is a known problem with concurrent hotcopy and pack, the fix for which
> > isn't released yet, I believe. Details here: http://svn.apache.org/r1605633
> What about the --incremental option? Any problems using it in conjunction with pack?
> My basic plan for the nightly housekeeping script is:
> svnadmin verify %repopath%
> svnadmin pack %repopath%
> svnadmin hotcopy %repopath% %backupdir% --incremental
> I should end up with a properly packed hotcopy at the end, right?
Yes, this should work. The incremental copy notices if the
source was packed since the last incremental copy, creates
corresponding packs in the destination repository and removes
individual revision files from the destination afterwards.
Just make sure not to run the last two commands in your list
concurrently (i.e. pack the source while a hotcopy is in progress)
until the change made in http://svn.apache.org/r1605633 is available
in a released version of Subversion. With the fix, the hotcopy command
will error out if a pack is in progress. Without it, the hotcopy will
succeed but could create a destination repository which is not packed
consistently, which will cause problems.
Received on 2014-08-04 20:32:41 CEST