BD wrote on 05/10/2010 09:52:39 AM:
> Thats a very interesting way of looking at this problem. It does
> make sense that multiple commit processes coming from the same
> machine really wouldnt be that different from the question I was
> asking. I guess from here I'll have to do some testing som
Thanks Hyrum,
Thats a very interesting way of looking at this problem. It does make sense
that multiple commit processes coming from the same machine really wouldnt
be that different from the question I was asking. I guess from here I'll
have to do some testing somehow, with nfs in the mix and see
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM, BD wrote:
>
> So the question remains, taking physical restraints out of the question, is
> there anyone out there who knows about managing the risks assocciated with
> having two or more apache/svn nodes accessing repos that are stored on a
> shared NFS storage sy
Thanks Les,
I know NFS itself can certainly be a bottleneck. However, we will be
devoting at least three shelves of disk on our NetApp 3070 which in our
standard RAID group size will make for about 38 data spindles and we will
have have 256 GB of read cache per head on a two head storage system.
On 5/7/2010 10:26 AM, BD wrote:
Hi All,
I'm starting a new project to consolidate all svn repos across our
company into a single instance. Originally we looked at doing a
active-passive cluster, but after looking at the loads on the current
individual svn repos, we are thinking that an active-ac
Thanks for the reply Ryan,
I'll have to look further into how locking is setup on our NetApp FAS 3070.
We were also considering using GFS to handle the locking, have you heard
anything about users having multiple svn compute nodes connecting to a repo
on GFS and using distributed lock manager?
I
On May 7, 2010, at 10:26, BD wrote:
> I'm starting a new project to consolidate all svn repos across our company
> into a single instance. Originally we looked at doing a active-passive
> cluster, but after looking at the loads on the current individual svn repos,
> we are thinking that an act
Hi All,
I'm starting a new project to consolidate all svn repos across our company
into a single instance. Originally we looked at doing a active-passive
cluster, but after looking at the loads on the current individual svn repos,
we are thinking that an active-active cluster would be preferable.
