On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Bo Berglund <bo.berglund_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 11:26:38 +0200, OBones <obones_at_free.fr> wrote:
>
>>Well, maybe I read this wrong, but the manual talks about a master and a
>>slave, which are tightly related. If I remove the master once the slave
>>is fully ready to take over its role, I'm not sure it will work
>>smoothly, hence my question.
>
> I just set up an svnsync system a few weeks back and my read is that
> the two repositories are basically mirror images of each other, but
> that the mirror should never be committed to.
> (Except for svnsync of course, it will shoot the commits performed on
> the master to the mirror thus replicating the state)
The mirror should never be committed to, until and unless any planned
migration is complete and the original master is disabled.
> But if you decide to take the master off-line at a later time and run
> with the mirror instead, then what you need to do is modify the hooks
> that are present on the mirror to disallow commits except from svnsync
> and whatever sync related hooks you have in place.
> After that the mirror should act as a regular repository, but you can
> no longer sync with the original because of colliding revision
> numbers.
Bingo. It is, theoretically, possible to individually bring commits
done directly on the slave back over to the original master to resolve
such a resulting split brain. But it's safer to set up a slave of the
slave, rely on that for failover, and shoot the original master server
through the head.
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com>
>
> --
> Bo Berglund
> Developer in Sweden
>
Received on 2018-04-26 19:48:24 CEST