subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <>
Subject Re: AW: SVN on docker/kubernetes/openshift - shared storage?
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:43:48 GMT
On 27.11.2018 11:25, Tietz, Jonathan wrote:
> Hi,
> we have times where the load of our server is getting quite high, so we want to spread
the load to different svn-instances.

The first step is to find out what exactly is causing the load; whether
it's commits or updates or something else.

>  As we have TBs of data, we do not want to share these data over different storages.

> But if you say, that (one) shared storage with different svn-instances (mod_subversion)
will never work, than ok, I didn't find an answer. Can you confirm?

Subversion itself supports master/slave replication, where all commits
go to a single server but read operations can be served by many. Maybe
that's sufficient for your case, but it's hard to say without any
performance data. Sometimes just tuning the server configuration may be

> If yes, then we have to thing about a different architecture, eg. many svn-instances
each with its own storage

Sure, you can split repositories amongst different servers. Or you can
use a commercial solution that provides master/master replication.

-- Brane

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Branko Čibej <> 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. November 2018 12:06
> An:
> Betreff: Re: SVN on docker/kubernetes/openshift - shared storage?
> On 23.11.2018 11:27, Tietz, Jonathan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> we are thinking about to run subversion on a docker/openshift environment.
>> That means we have multiple subversion instances, reading/writing on 
>> subversion repositories saved on one shared storage (currently nfs 
>> filesystem)
>> According to internet, e.g. 
>> /0/why-you-should-not-use-network-file-system-with-git-or-svn
>> You should not use nfs.
>> Has someone else running a similar setup with a shared storage? If yes, what filesystem
are you using?
> What are you trying to achieve with this configuration? Perhaps there's a better way
to solve your use-case than using a basically unsupported and possibly broken configuration.
> -- Brane

View raw message