You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by sp...@dwinner.net on 2006/07/05 10:16:46 UTC
backing up fsfs repo
Hello,
Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal backup
(unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might be? Is it
safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"? I did some testing, and it
seemed to me that I could take a repo, rename it, move it, copy it, make a
tarball out of it, delete it, then restore it from tarball, and it seemed
safe and still functional in every case. But I don't want any nasty
surprises, so if anybody knows of a reason this is not a good idea, please
let me know.
I know you can't get away with this with a berkley repo, but it seems to me
that fsfs might be similar treatment as I did with a cvs repo, where I could
just tar up the whole cvs root and rely on that as my backup.
Thanks for any info,
DW
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>.
On Jul 5, 2006, at 13:45, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>> Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal
>> backup
>> (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might
>> be? Is it
>> safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
>
> IMHO, yes, because it is The Documented Way(tm) to make backups.
>
>> I did some testing, and it seemed to me that I could take a repo,
>> rename it,
>> move it, copy it, make a tarball out of it, delete it, then
>> restore it from
>> tarball, and it seemed safe and still functional in every case.
>> But I don't
>> want any nasty surprises, so if anybody knows of a reason this is
>> not a good
>> idea, please let me know.
>
> The FSFS backend depends on portable ways to access files, so
> sophisticated
> stuff is probably not needed (and thus can't fail).
>
>> I know you can't get away with this with a berkley repo,
>
> Yes you can, but Subversion used different versions of BDB in the
> backend and
> those versions are not necessarily compatible. Usually they are
> convertible
> but not necessarily so. That might be the problem that you were
> referring to.
> Assuming the FSFS backend suddenly finds that it also needs something
> different, it might require an update of the existing repository,
> too, so it
> could develop the same problems. That is another reason for me to
> rely on
> dumpfiles (which in fact also come in different versions, but those
> have a
> guaranteed upgrade path built into Subversion).
There's also the way that when you commit to a BDB repository, it has
to modify old revisions, because it stores the complete current file,
and then deltas going back in time. But FSFS only writes a new
revision, as a delta against previous revisions; old revisions never
change in FSFS. Also, in a BDB repo, the BDB files can be changed
merely by reading the repo, whereas with FSFS the repo files will
only change through a commit. All of this makes a plain old file-copy
backup of an FSFS repo much likelier to succeed than such a backup of
a BDB repo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 09:24 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >> Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal backup
> >> (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might be? Is it
> >> safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
> >
> > IMHO, yes, because it is The Documented Way(tm) to make backups.
>
> It's a slight bit risky, because if files are being written while being
> tarballed, you may wind up with an incomplete change recorded on the last
> last commit operation. FSFS seems much better about this than BDB, though.
What would happen if the server crashed with that incomplete change
in progress? Is there a way to recover, and if so would it also
work to fix a backup snapshot that happened to hit that state?
> I'd personally suggest using hot-packup-py to make a clean backup, and
> backing up that. In case anyone uses the system while you're in the midst of
> doing the backup, it's handy to have a good clean snapshot like that. You
> might not have the last commit recorded, but it seems much safer.
When you run many applications on a server it is kind of annoying to
have to dedicate special operations and duplicate space for each one
just to back it up. Shouldn't it be able to recover from any state
that you happen to copy?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>.
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <db...@dberlin.org>
> To: "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nk...@comcast.net>
> Cc: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:35 AM
> Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
>
>> This is wrong.
>> The only way you can get screwed up is if you do not copy the current
>> file first.
>> As long as you do that, it does not matter what writes occur afterwards,
>> the repo will still be fine (this is because old revisions are immutable
>> in FSFS).
>
> How are you going to force tar to do the current files last?
No, it needs to copy them *first*.
(As i said, you get screwed up if you don't copy it first).
And the answer, of course, is simple: give tar a list of file names
("-T" option) to archive, and specify it first in the list.
tar will preserve that order.
HTH,
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@comcast.net>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Berlin" <db...@dberlin.org>
To: "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nk...@comcast.net>
Cc: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
> This is wrong.
> The only way you can get screwed up is if you do not copy the current
> file first.
> As long as you do that, it does not matter what writes occur afterwards,
> the repo will still be fine (this is because old revisions are immutable
> in FSFS).
How are you going to force tar to do the current files last?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>.
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ulrich Eckhardt" <ec...@satorlaser.com>
> To: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:45 AM
> Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
>
>
>> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:16, spock@dwinner.net wrote:
>>> Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal backup
>>> (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might be? Is it
>>> safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
>> IMHO, yes, because it is The Documented Way(tm) to make backups.
>
> It's a slight bit risky, because if files are being written while being
> tarballed, you may wind up with an incomplete change recorded on the last
> last commit operation. FSFS seems much better about this than BDB, though.
>
This is wrong.
The only way you can get screwed up is if you do not copy the current
file first.
As long as you do that, it does not matter what writes occur afterwards,
the repo will still be fine (this is because old revisions are immutable
in FSFS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@comcast.net>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ulrich Eckhardt" <ec...@satorlaser.com>
To: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:16, spock@dwinner.net wrote:
>> Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal backup
>> (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might be? Is it
>> safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
>
> IMHO, yes, because it is The Documented Way(tm) to make backups.
It's a slight bit risky, because if files are being written while being
tarballed, you may wind up with an incomplete change recorded on the last
last commit operation. FSFS seems much better about this than BDB, though.
>> I did some testing, and it seemed to me that I could take a repo, rename
>> it,
>> move it, copy it, make a tarball out of it, delete it, then restore it
>> from
>> tarball, and it seemed safe and still functional in every case. But I
>> don't
>> want any nasty surprises, so if anybody knows of a reason this is not a
>> good
>> idea, please let me know.
>
> The FSFS backend depends on portable ways to access files, so
> sophisticated
> stuff is probably not needed (and thus can't fail).
I'd personally suggest using hot-packup-py to make a clean backup, and
backing up that. In case anyone uses the system while you're in the midst of
doing the backup, it's handy to have a good clean snapshot like that. You
might not have the last commit recorded, but it seems much safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
'John Rouillard' wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erik Hemdal" <er...@nospam>
> > To: "'John Rouillard'" <ro...@nospam>
> > Cc: <us...@nospam>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:55 PM
> > Subject: RE: backing up fsfs repo
>
> Please don't send full email adresses for the spam harvsters. usually
> your email program has the ability to filter the email addresses.
Trying to hide mail addresses sent to thousands of people on the
mailing list is futile. So I would not try hide. Once you send a
message to a mailing list that mail address is forever known on the
network and will forever turn up in search engines. If this concerns
you then use post only mail addresses and discard or reject any
incoming messages to them.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by 'John Rouillard' <ro...@renesys.com>.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:58:25PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Hemdal" <er...@nospam>
> To: "'John Rouillard'" <ro...@nospam>
> Cc: <us...@nospam>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:55 PM
> Subject: RE: backing up fsfs repo
Please don't send full email adresses for the spam harvsters. usually
your email program has the ability to filter the email addresses.
> >>> If there is a known and accepted way of backing these up, I would
> >>> appreciate a pointer.
> >>
> >>When I restore, I just do an 'svn co' into the hooks and conf
> >>directories in the repository.
> >>
> >>I don't know if this is a "known and accepted" way of
> >>handling it, but it works for me. YMMV, must be at least 18
> >>years of age ...
> >I have the scripts under version control, but had not thought of checking
> >out to the server directories. I appreciate all the good advice. Erik
>
> I actually use RCS for a bit of very local source control of those
> configuration files, so I don't break the source control system with
> checked in modified config files and cause a real headache for myself.
You can always hand edit the scripts in the conf and hooks directory
if you break them and then check in the corrected copies. I did (well
had to do) it while I was developing the hook script that
automatically updates the conf and hooks directories 8-).
--
-- rouilj
John Rouillard
System Administrator
Renesys Corporation
603-643-9300 x 111
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@comcast.net>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Hemdal" <er...@comprehensivepower.com>
To: "'John Rouillard'" <ro...@renesys.com>
Cc: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: backing up fsfs repo
>
>
>> > If there is a known and accepted way of backing these up, I would
>> > appreciate a pointer.
>>
>> When I restore, I just do an 'svn co' into the hooks and conf
>> directories in the repository.
>>
>> I don't know if this is a "known and accepted" way of
>> handling it, but it works for me. YMMV, must be at least 18
>> years of age ...
>>
>>
>
> I have the scripts under version control, but had not thought of checking
> out to the server directories. I appreciate all the good advice. Erik
I actually use RCS for a bit of very local source control of those
configuration files, so I don't break the source control system with checked
in modified config files and cause a real headache for myself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Erik Hemdal <er...@comprehensivepower.com>.
> > If there is a known and accepted way of backing these up, I would
> > appreciate a pointer.
>
> When I restore, I just do an 'svn co' into the hooks and conf
> directories in the repository.
>
> I don't know if this is a "known and accepted" way of
> handling it, but it works for me. YMMV, must be at least 18
> years of age ...
>
>
I have the scripts under version control, but had not thought of checking
out to the server directories. I appreciate all the good advice. Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by John Rouillard <ro...@renesys.com>.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:57:11AM -0400, Erik Hemdal wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:16, spock@dwinner.net wrote:
> > Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal
> > backup (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might
> > be? Is it safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
> Using dumpfiles gives me more flexibility than a simple tar would, and it
> was easy to automate backups using dumpfiles.
>
> I did discover, though, that svnadmin dump does not seem to backup the conf
> files, nor any of my hook scripts. I don't know if this is because the dump
> ignores them or if I am doing something wrong with svnadmin dump.
>
> If there is a known and accepted way of backing these up, I would appreciate
> a pointer.
What you don't put your hook scripts under version control ;-). I do
and have a hook script automatically check them out into the
repository. That way I get the backups of the hook script in the dump.
When I restore, I just do an 'svn co' into the hooks and conf
directories in the repository.
I don't know if this is a "known and accepted" way of handling it, but
it works for me. YMMV, must be at least 18 years of age ...
--
-- rouilj
John Rouillard
System Administrator
Renesys Corporation
603-643-9300 x 111
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>.
On Jul 5, 2006, at 14:57, Erik Hemdal wrote:
> I did discover, though, that svnadmin dump does not seem to backup
> the conf
> files, nor any of my hook scripts. I don't know if this is because
> the dump
> ignores them or if I am doing something wrong with svnadmin dump.
>
> If there is a known and accepted way of backing these up, I would
> appreciate
> a pointer.
Correct... an svn dumpfile does not contain any information about the
hooks or conf directories; back them up separately if you've made
custotmizations there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Erik Hemdal <er...@comprehensivepower.com>.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:16, spock@dwinner.net wrote:
> Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal
> backup (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might
> be? Is it safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
I've found that svnadmin dump does the job of backing up repositories just
fine;
I've had to rely on dumps to undo some changes I wanted to ignore and also
to move
repositories between machines. This works quickly and flawlessly.
Using dumpfiles gives me more flexibility than a simple tar would, and it
was easy to automate backups using dumpfiles.
I did discover, though, that svnadmin dump does not seem to backup the conf
files, nor any of my hook scripts. I don't know if this is because the dump
ignores them or if I am doing something wrong with svnadmin dump.
If there is a known and accepted way of backing these up, I would appreciate
a pointer.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Ulrich Eckhardt <ec...@satorlaser.com>.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 12:16, spock@dwinner.net wrote:
> Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal backup
> (unix dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might be? Is it
> safe, or should I still be using "svnadmin dump"?
IMHO, yes, because it is The Documented Way(tm) to make backups.
> I did some testing, and it seemed to me that I could take a repo, rename it,
> move it, copy it, make a tarball out of it, delete it, then restore it from
> tarball, and it seemed safe and still functional in every case. But I don't
> want any nasty surprises, so if anybody knows of a reason this is not a good
> idea, please let me know.
The FSFS backend depends on portable ways to access files, so sophisticated
stuff is probably not needed (and thus can't fail).
> I know you can't get away with this with a berkley repo,
Yes you can, but Subversion used different versions of BDB in the backend and
those versions are not necessarily compatible. Usually they are convertible
but not necessarily so. That might be the problem that you were referring to.
Assuming the FSFS backend suddenly finds that it also needs something
different, it might require an update of the existing repository, too, so it
could develop the same problems. That is another reason for me to rely on
dumpfiles (which in fact also come in different versions, but those have a
guaranteed upgrade path built into Subversion).
just my 2cc
Uli
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 7/6/06, Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de> wrote:
> Wendy,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wendy Smoak [mailto:wsmoak@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:30 PM
> > To: users@subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
> >
> > On 7/5/06, Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de> wrote:
> >
> > > as long as you make sure that no svn server (svnserve or apache) is
> > > accessing (and thus potentially modifying) your repository
> > while you
> > > are backing up the simple method of "tar"ing or similar
> > should do the
> > > job perfectly well.
> > > If you can't tell exactly, "svnadmin dump" is safer.
> >
> > Does this mean it's _not_ necessary to prevent access to the
> > repository during 'svnadmin dump'?
> >
> > On a similar topic, I've heard advice to "take the repository offline"
> > before backing up.
> You are right.
>
> I confused the "dump" and "hotcopy" subcommands, sorry (excuse me, I'm almost 50
> ;-) ). "svnadmin hotcopy" _really_ works regardless of whether the repository is
> currently accessed by a server process (according to the SVN book).
>
> Unlike that there is no statement about "dump"s behaviour with respect to
> concurrent access situations, so it should be considered rather unsafe.
There's no such statement because 'dump' uses the normal repository
access methods - in contrast with the 'raw file copy' from hotcopy -
making it just as safe as concurrent checkouts.
HTH,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Nico Kadel-Garcia <nk...@comcast.net>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ulrich Eckhardt" <ec...@satorlaser.com>
To: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:29, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>> On 7/5/06, Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de> wrote:
>> > as long as you make sure that no svn server (svnserve or apache) is
>> > accessing (and thus potentially modifying) your repository while you
>> > are
>> > backing up the simple method of "tar"ing or similar should do the job
>> > perfectly well.
>> > If you can't tell exactly, "svnadmin dump" is safer.
>>
>> Does this mean it's _not_ necessary to prevent access to the
>> repository during 'svnadmin dump'?
>
> I think it is, but I'm not sure. There is an included script however,
> called
> hot-backup, which does The Right Thing(tm) to duplicate a live and active
> repository. You can then use that double to tar up or dump without having
> to
> worry that someone might be writing to it.
I had mistyped it: it's hot-backup.py, in the tools/backup directory of the
source tree. I really, really like this tool: I just wish it compied
symlinks correctly instead of silently ignoring them. (Actually, that's a
bug I'd like to enter, if others agree that it's a bug.)
>> On a similar topic, I've heard advice to "take the repository offline"
>> before backing up.
>>
>> This may be some basic unix admin thing I just don't know, but having
>> started svnserve...
>> $ svnserve -d -r /path/to/repos
>> ... how do I _stop_ it? I looked at svnserve --help, and a quick
>> search only turned up advice to kill the process.
>
> ...which takes the repository offline.
>
>> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-09/0800.shtml
>>
>> Is that really the best way?
>
> Hmm, I didn't read above link but I start svnserve via [x]inetd and just
> stop
> that one temporarily or deactivate svnserve there. Well, in fact I use
> hot-backup so I don't even have to do either. ;)
>
> Uli
That does mean you have to stop HTTP/WebDAV access and local file access as
well, without interrupting active "commit" operations. Those are additional
reasons why I so prefer hot-backup.py.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Ulrich Eckhardt <ec...@satorlaser.com>.
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:29, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 7/5/06, Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de> wrote:
> > as long as you make sure that no svn server (svnserve or apache) is
> > accessing (and thus potentially modifying) your repository while you are
> > backing up the simple method of "tar"ing or similar should do the job
> > perfectly well.
> > If you can't tell exactly, "svnadmin dump" is safer.
>
> Does this mean it's _not_ necessary to prevent access to the
> repository during 'svnadmin dump'?
I think it is, but I'm not sure. There is an included script however, called
hot-backup, which does The Right Thing(tm) to duplicate a live and active
repository. You can then use that double to tar up or dump without having to
worry that someone might be writing to it.
> On a similar topic, I've heard advice to "take the repository offline"
> before backing up.
>
> This may be some basic unix admin thing I just don't know, but having
> started svnserve...
> $ svnserve -d -r /path/to/repos
> ... how do I _stop_ it? I looked at svnserve --help, and a quick
> search only turned up advice to kill the process.
...which takes the repository offline.
> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-09/0800.shtml
>
> Is that really the best way?
Hmm, I didn't read above link but I start svnserve via [x]inetd and just stop
that one temporarily or deactivate svnserve there. Well, in fact I use
hot-backup so I don't even have to do either. ;)
Uli
****************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.domino-printing.com/>
****************************************************
This Email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any reading, redistribution, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception, viruses and unauthorised amendment and Domino UK Limited does not accept liability for any such corruption, interception, viruses or amendment or their consequences.
****************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de>.
Wendy,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wendy Smoak [mailto:wsmoak@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:30 PM
> To: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: backing up fsfs repo
>
> On 7/5/06, Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de> wrote:
>
> > as long as you make sure that no svn server (svnserve or apache) is
> > accessing (and thus potentially modifying) your repository
> while you
> > are backing up the simple method of "tar"ing or similar
> should do the
> > job perfectly well.
> > If you can't tell exactly, "svnadmin dump" is safer.
>
> Does this mean it's _not_ necessary to prevent access to the
> repository during 'svnadmin dump'?
>
> On a similar topic, I've heard advice to "take the repository offline"
> before backing up.
You are right.
I confused the "dump" and "hotcopy" subcommands, sorry (excuse me, I'm almost 50
;-) ). "svnadmin hotcopy" _really_ works regardless of whether the repository is
currently accessed by a server process (according to the SVN book).
Unlike that there is no statement about "dump"s behaviour with respect to
concurrent access situations, so it should be considered rather unsafe.
> This may be some basic unix admin thing I just don't know,
> but having started svnserve...
> $ svnserve -d -r /path/to/repos
> .... how do I _stop_ it? I looked at svnserve --help, and a
> quick search only turned up advice to kill the process.
> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-09/0800.shtml
I personally don't know about any other method.
But if you check out other systems' fancy "blablactl start|stop|restart"
front-ends you will notice that they neither do anything else in most cases.
>
> Is that really the best way?
Don't know for sure, but maybe the _only_ one ;-)
HTH, Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 7/5/06, Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de> wrote:
> as long as you make sure that no svn server (svnserve or apache) is
> accessing (and thus potentially modifying) your repository while you are
> backing up the simple method of "tar"ing or similar should do the job
> perfectly well.
> If you can't tell exactly, "svnadmin dump" is safer.
Does this mean it's _not_ necessary to prevent access to the
repository during 'svnadmin dump'?
On a similar topic, I've heard advice to "take the repository offline"
before backing up.
This may be some basic unix admin thing I just don't know, but having
started svnserve...
$ svnserve -d -r /path/to/repos
... how do I _stop_ it? I looked at svnserve --help, and a quick
search only turned up advice to kill the process.
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-09/0800.shtml
Is that really the best way?
Thanks,
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
RE: backing up fsfs repo
Posted by Thomas Hemmer <th...@go-engineering.de>.
Duan,
as long as you make sure that no svn server (svnserve or apache) is accessing
(and thus potentially modifying) your repository while you are backing up the
simple method of "tar"ing or similar should do the job perfectly well.
If you can't tell exactly, "svnadmin dump" is safer.
- Thomas
_____
From: Duane Winner [mailto:dwinner@dwinner.net] On Behalf Of spock@dwinner.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:17 PM
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: backing up fsfs repo
Hello,
Can anybody tell me what the implications of just doing a normal backup (unix
dump or tar of flat file structure) of an fsfs repo might be? Is it safe, or
should I still be using "svnadmin dump"? I did some testing, and it seemed to me
that I could take a repo, rename it, move it, copy it, make a tarball out of it,
delete it, then restore it from tarball, and it seemed safe and still functional
in every case. But I don't want any nasty surprises, so if anybody knows of a
reason this is not a good idea, please let me know.
I know you can't get away with this with a berkley repo, but it seems to me that
fsfs might be similar treatment as I did with a cvs repo, where I could just tar
up the whole cvs root and rely on that as my backup.
Thanks for any info,
DW