On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:38 AM Anton Shepelev <anton.txt_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Phippard:
>
> >My first choice option would be to setup a repository on a
> >second server and use svnsync from a post-commit hook
> >script to sync the change. After that, I would use
> >svnadmin hotcopy with the new --incremental option (as of
> >1.8?). Dump is not a great choice for backups.
>
> Thank you, but I should prefer a traditional backup
> approach. You and other posters say that dumps are poor
> choice, so I shall backup incremental hot copies. But the
> question remains that I have asked already in another reply:
> are hot-copies a reliable means of long-term storage.
>
Yes. A hotcopy is basically just an intelligent backup/copy of the
repository. It is similar to what a backup/file copy tool might do except
that it is aware of in progress transactions and make sure you have a
consistent repository copy.
Cannot they become obsolete when a new version of SVN comes
> out?
No. It is a valid copy of the repository.
Are they portable across operating systems and
> filesystems? (I fear not)
>
Yes, they are absolutely portable across OS and FS. As is the repos
itself. The only issue when going across these is managing the OS level
permissions of the copy. IOW, if you run something as root the copy will
tend to be owned by root which might make it not ready for consumption
without a chown/chmod.
I used to regular move fsfs repositories between an AS/400 EBCDIC server
and Windows without issue.
The problem with dumps is that they have to be loaded to become usable and
it also only copies the repository content not other things like locks and
hook scripts. The hotcopy is copying the repository files directly so you
have everything and you could even be serving the hotcopy from a
hotswappable server.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2019-08-22 16:47:33 CEST