You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Richard England <ri...@mentor.com> on 2010/06/04 23:41:56 UTC
Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
using FSFS.
Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
~~R
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Richard England <ri...@mentor.com>.
This thread starts to discuss this but it is not clear if anything
definitive has been done to insure that multiple access is truly
supported on a single FSFS data base.
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-09/0791.shtml
Anyone ?
---- Richard England wrote the following on 06/04/2010 04:41 PM:
> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
> using FSFS.
>
> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
>
> ~~R
>
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 10 June 2010 06:34, Richard England <rlengland@verizon.net
> <ma...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> On 06/08/2010 01:48 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Richard England wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
>>> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
>>> using FSFS.
>>>
>>> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
>>>
>> You can easily have multiple concurrent accesses even without running two
>> Apaches, e.g. concurrent file accesses by different users on the same
>> machine, different svn+ssh sessions, multiple svnserve instances spawned by
>> [x]inetd etc.
>>
>> In other words, it works.
>>
>> Uli
>>
>>
>
> Andy, the rationale is to allow a team to migrate from one server to
> another over time rather than forcing them to move their working
> copies before it makes sense in their development process. They are
> aware they can use "svn switch --relocate" to update the working
> copes but this would make it a little more palatable for them.
>
> Than you Andy, and Uli.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /~~R/
>
>
>
> Why not just have the old server issue a 301/302 to the new server
> location (I can never remember which is moved permanently)?
I haven't tried it, but you should also be able to use apache's ProxyPass or a
RewriteRule that triggers a proxy to the new server to make it completely
transparent.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>.
On Jun 10, 2010, at 01:13, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Why not just have the old server issue a 301/302 to the new server location (I can never remember which is moved permanently)?
Subversion clients do not follow redirects.
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On 10 June 2010 06:34, Richard England <rl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 01:48 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
>
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Richard England wrote:
>
>
> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
> using FSFS.
>
> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
>
>
> You can easily have multiple concurrent accesses even without running two
> Apaches, e.g. concurrent file accesses by different users on the same
> machine, different svn+ssh sessions, multiple svnserve instances spawned by
> [x]inetd etc.
>
> In other words, it works.
>
> Uli
>
>
>
>
> Andy, the rationale is to allow a team to migrate from one server to
> another over time rather than forcing them to move their working copies
> before it makes sense in their development process. They are aware they can
> use "svn switch --relocate" to update the working copes but this would make
> it a little more palatable for them.
>
> Than you Andy, and Uli.
>
> --
> ------------------------------
> *~~R*
>
Why not just have the old server issue a 301/302 to the new server location
(I can never remember which is moved permanently)?
-Stephen
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Richard England <rl...@verizon.net>.
On 06/08/2010 01:48 AM, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Richard England wrote:
>
>> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
>> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
>> using FSFS.
>>
>> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
>>
> You can easily have multiple concurrent accesses even without running two
> Apaches, e.g. concurrent file accesses by different users on the same
> machine, different svn+ssh sessions, multiple svnserve instances spawned by
> [x]inetd etc.
>
> In other words, it works.
>
> Uli
>
>
Andy, the rationale is to allow a team to migrate from one server to
another over time rather than forcing them to move their working copies
before it makes sense in their development process. They are aware they
can use "svn switch --relocate" to update the working copes but this
would make it a little more palatable for them.
Than you Andy, and Uli.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/~~R/
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Ulrich Eckhardt <ec...@satorlaser.com>.
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Richard England wrote:
> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is
> using FSFS.
>
> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
You can easily have multiple concurrent accesses even without running two
Apaches, e.g. concurrent file accesses by different users on the same
machine, different svn+ssh sessions, multiple svnserve instances spawned by
[x]inetd etc.
In other words, it works.
Uli
--
ML: http://subversion.tigris.org/mailing-list-guidelines.html
FAQ: http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
Docs: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Sator Laser GmbH, Fangdieckstraße 75a, 22547 Hamburg, Deutschland
Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
**************************************************************************************
Visit our website at <http://www.satorlaser.de/>
**************************************************************************************
Diese E-Mail einschließlich sämtlicher Anhänge ist nur für den Adressaten bestimmt und kann vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie den Absender umgehend, falls Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein sollten. Die E-Mail ist in diesem Fall zu löschen und darf weder gelesen, weitergeleitet, veröffentlicht oder anderweitig benutzt werden.
E-Mails können durch Dritte gelesen werden und Viren sowie nichtautorisierte Änderungen enthalten. Sator Laser GmbH ist für diese Folgen nicht verantwortlich.
**************************************************************************************
Re: Two svn/apache servers accessing one database
Posted by Andy Levy <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 19:41, Richard England
<ri...@mentor.com> wrote:
> Are there any possible repercussions of having two server both running
> Apache/SVN (same version) accessing the same database files? This is using
> FSFS.
What are your reasons for wanting to do so?
> Is this likely to cause data corruption or anything nasty?
It's not supposed to, but weird things are always possible. Plus, both
servers will need to be identical in other ways so that your hook
scripts can run properly.