Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 15:58:13 +0200:
> Right. I think the slave should be selective about what it forwards to
> the master. E.g. requests for log messages can certainly be sent to the
> master without causing much harm. The only real problem would be an update
> to a revisi
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:31:21AM +1000, Simon Takita wrote:
>
> On 16/08/2011, at 02:34 , Stefan Sperling stsp-at-elego.de |subversion users
> list| wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:06:29AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> I suppose the direct access could help in the case where the
> >>
On 16/08/2011, at 02:34 , Stefan Sperling stsp-at-elego.de |subversion users
list| wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:06:29AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I suppose the direct access could help in the case where the
>> revision taking too long to sync is not the same data the client
>> needs f
On 15/08/2011, at 22:54 , Stefan Sperling stsp-at-elego.de |subversion users
list| wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:34:15AM +, Simon wrote:
>> We have a main master repository and a number of mirror slave
>> repositories at a bunch of locations that are set up as webdav
>> transparent wri
On 15/08/2011, at 23:30 , Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel-at-gmail.com |subversion
users list| wrote:
> This is *precisely* the situation I warned about last week? When
> someone else was trying to set up that kind of live mirror pretending
> to be a master-master setup. I'm quite 3.5 hours is impre
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> I can see how you might do a quorum based locking scheme there to make
> things reliable in the case of a partitioned network with multiple replicas,
> but what can it do to improve the time it takes for a certain amount of
> new/uncached d
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:06:29AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I suppose the direct access could help in the case where the
> revision taking too long to sync is not the same data the client
> needs for its update, but otherwise it could make things worse.
Good point.
I was thinking of operation
On 8/15/2011 10:34 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:06:39AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
I can see how you might do a quorum based locking scheme there to
make things reliable in the case of a partitioned network with
multiple replicas, but what can it do to improve the time i
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 05:34:59PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I believe with WD clients using a slave server can access data while it is
> being copied to the slave because read-requests for data that isn't yet
> available on the slave are proxied to the master.
>
> This is something Subversi
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:06:39AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I can see how you might do a quorum based locking scheme there to
> make things reliable in the case of a partitioned network with
> multiple replicas, but what can it do to improve the time it takes
> for a certain amount of new/uncac
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:31:32AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > AFAIK they don't modify Subversion's code. Their solution proxys webdav
> > traffic between Subversion clients and servers, like a man-in-the-middle.
> > The licence of
On 8/15/2011 9:31 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:30:58AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Note that this is also one of the cases where the selection of the
Apache license for Subversion, rather than GPL, means tha
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:30:58AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Note that this is also one of the cases where the selection of the
>> Apache license for Subversion, rather than GPL, means that Wandisco
>> can build a business plan on
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:30:58AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Note that this is also one of the cases where the selection of the
> Apache license for Subversion, rather than GPL, means that Wandisco
> can build a business plan on selling these commercially enhanced
> versions of Subversion w
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Simon wrote:
> We have a main master repository and a number of mirror slave repositories at
> a bunch of locations that are set up as webdav transparent write-through
> proxies. These are synced by a process similar to svnsync, and this all seems
> to work okay
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:34:15AM +, Simon wrote:
> We have a main master repository and a number of mirror slave
> repositories at a bunch of locations that are set up as webdav
> transparent write-through proxies. These are synced by a process
> similar to svnsync, and this all seems to work
Guten Tag Simon,
am Montag, 15. August 2011 um 03:34 schrieben Sie:
> I have a couple of other thoughts on this but I was wondering if
> anyone has some experience in this area?
Sounds like what you really want is to spent some money and a get a
working solution:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversi
We have a main master repository and a number of mirror slave repositories at a
bunch of locations that are set up as webdav transparent write-through proxies.
These are synced by a process similar to svnsync, and this all seems to work
okay.
However, it is inevitable that there is delay in the
18 matches
Mail list logo
