You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Bo Berglund <bo...@gmail.com> on 2019/08/22 11:03:03 UTC
Using a backup server as local svn handler?
I have a fully updated Ubuntu Server 18 LTS sitting in my home LAN
acting as a subversion backup server for my company via svnsync.
It runs svn 1.9.7 as does the production server at the company.
So I have set it up with the same repositories as on the production
server (which is on Windows Server) and set these as read-only for
everyone except the svnsync user. They were locally populated via
dump files moved from the company .
I have a nightly task on the production server, which runs svnsync
for each repository on it towards my backup server.
This has worked fine for 18 months now.
Now I would like to also use the Ubuntu server as a versioning server
for my own programming, but I don't know if that will interfere with
the backup server functionality my company depends on...
If I create a "Private" repository on this server and store my projects
in that repository, can it interfere with the backed up repos?
AFAIK you cannot write anything in a synced repository except via
svnsync or the backup system will break....
I am not very well informed about the inner workings of subversion
to make it absolutely certain that no damage will happen...
Best Regards,
Bo Berglund
RE: Using a backup server as local svn handler?
Posted by Bo Berglund <bo...@gmail.com>.
Gosh,
that means updating the production server as well as the Ubuntu backup server then...
The production server is on Windows Server 2016 or maybe later and is using VisualSvnServer.
Oh, well...
Best Regards,
Bo Berglund
________________________________
From: Nathan Hartman [mailto:hartman.nathan@gmail.com]
Sent: den 22 augusti 2019 18:53
To: Bo Berglund
Cc: Subversion Users
Subject: Re: Using a backup server as local svn handler?
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:03 AM Bo Berglund <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
It runs svn 1.9.7 as does the production server at the company.
1.9.7 has a bug related to files whose size is an exact multiple of 16,384 or 65,536 or something. I don't remember the exact details or whether that's client or server side. But you'll probably want (at least) a later 1.9.x if at all possible.
I think it's this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/SVN-4722
It's resolved in later 1.9.x.
Re: Using a backup server as local svn handler?
Posted by Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:03 AM Bo Berglund <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It runs svn 1.9.7 as does the production server at the company.
1.9.7 has a bug related to files whose size is an exact multiple of 16,384
or 65,536 or something. I don't remember the exact details or whether
that's client or server side. But you'll probably want (at least) a later
1.9.x if at all possible.
I think it's this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/SVN-4722
It's resolved in later 1.9.x.
Re: Using a backup server as local svn handler?
Posted by Pierre Fourès <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
Le jeu. 22 août 2019 à 13:46, Andreas Stieger <An...@gmx.de> a écrit :
>
> The only extra consideration that would need to be made is when using write-through proxying (SVNMasterURI). Merely noting for completeness that you would need an extra Location block in your httpd configuration. But your back-up configuration does not include that.
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html#svn.serverconfig.httpd.extra.writethruproxy
>
> Andreas
Thanks for the detailed answer Andreas, you might have just pointed me
to what I was seeking to reach for my requirements of "quite high
availability" without a too complex setup. I doesn't need real and
strong high availability. I don't mind not to be able to commit
anymore if the master goes down, and while it's down. However, I
clearly would benefit to have the slave still be up and up-to-date
with the latest revision committed to the master in the event the
master would go down. For one point, the repos would be available in
read-only mode, but more over, if my understanding are good, depending
on my configuration, this would mean I could ensure not to loose a
single commit even if the master goes down. Is that last hypothesis
valid ?
In the documentation, I read "The extra bits on the end of each line
aren't necessary, but they're a sneaky way to allow the sync commands
to run in the background so that the Subversion client isn't left
waiting forever for the commit to finish.". Regarding my desire not to
loose any single commit, if I doesn't span the svnsync in the
background (by not using "&"), this should hang the client process
until the slave are synced, thus, when I commit, the commit would
return only when the slave is synced. This would slow up commits, for
sure, but if master and slave are connected to each other over a good
network, this shouldn't add a lot of lag and could be a trade off I
would be ready to take (for some repos) if this enable me to ensure
that when a commits returns, it has been propagated to at least two
(or more) physical servers.
I would really appreciate your view on the feasibility of this setup.
Best Regards,
Pierre.
RE: Using a backup server as local svn handler?
Posted by Bo Berglund <bo...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:45:52 +0200, "Andreas Stieger" <An...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>> If I create a "Private" repository on this server and store my projects
>> in that repository, can it interfere with the backed up repos?
>
>This works without issues as long as the repository names are separate.
>
>> AFAIK you cannot write anything in a synced repository except via
>> svnsync or the backup system will break....
>
>The granularity for this is the repository, not the server. In other words,
>you can run your own repositories separate from that that are svnsynced from
>another location.
>
>The only extra consideration that would need to be made is when using write-through
>proxying (SVNMasterURI). Merely noting for completeness that you would need an
>extra Location block in your httpd configuration. But your back-up configuration
>does not include that.
>http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html#svn.serverconfig.httpd.extra.writethruproxy
>
>Andreas
Thanks Andreas for the clarification, I thought this was probably the case
but needed confirmation.
And it is not set up as write-through, we do nightlies only.
Regards,
Bo Berglund
Sweden
Re: Using a backup server as local svn handler?
Posted by Andreas Stieger <An...@gmx.de>.
Hello,
> If I create a "Private" repository on this server and store my projects
> in that repository, can it interfere with the backed up repos?
This works without issues as long as the repository names are separate.
> AFAIK you cannot write anything in a synced repository except via
> svnsync or the backup system will break....
The granularity for this is the repository, not the server. In other words, you can run your own repositories separate from that that are svnsynced from another location.
The only extra consideration that would need to be made is when using write-through proxying (SVNMasterURI). Merely noting for completeness that you would need an extra Location block in your httpd configuration. But your back-up configuration does not include that.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html#svn.serverconfig.httpd.extra.writethruproxy
Andreas