[ old thread, but I'd like to add this warning to the archives: ]
> > > > If you ensure that no commits happen during the backup period you
> > > > could use rsync instead.
> > >
> > > It is not safe to rsync live Subversion filesystems. (the result may or
> > > may not be corrupt)
> >
> > That's
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:17:07 +0200
> From: s...@elego.de
> To: d...@daniel.shahaf.name
> CC: smith_winston_6...@hotmail.com; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: large number of large binary files in subversion
>
> On Wed,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:02:28PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:45:21 +0200:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:03:16AM +1100, Winston Smith wrote:
> > > Yes, I planned to do that for a read-only backup repository as part of
> > > various backup schedul
Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:45:21 +0200:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:03:16AM +1100, Winston Smith wrote:
> > Yes, I planned to do that for a read-only backup repository as part of
> > various backup schedules (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly).
>
> Unfortunately there is no inc
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:03:16AM +1100, Winston Smith wrote:
>
> > > repo(s) is/are on a permanently mounted USB disk.
> >
> > The USB stick might give you less i/o throughput than an internal hard
> > disk, and it might fail early due to flash wearing out.
>
> I believe I mentioned a disk, not
> > repo(s) is/are on a permanently mounted USB disk.
>
> The USB stick might give you less i/o throughput than an internal hard
> disk, and it might fail early due to flash wearing out.
I believe I mentioned a disk, not a stick. But thanks anyway...
> using
> 'svnadmin hotcopy' to copy your rep
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 06:02:07PM +1100, Winston Smith wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Thanks for your replies. So, in principle, I should not expect any problems.
> The machine would be a decent one-core Athlon3500+ with 2GB RAM,
> doing nothing else other than serving bugzilla, reviewboard and mediawik
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:04:26PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
> Why can't we send the recorded checksum from the server instead of
> sending the whole file and then calculating it on the client side?
>
> If the checksum matches one of the pristine files, then use that to
> populate the nodes table.
corruption.
But this does not seem to be of any concern.
Thanks again.
- Winston
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:04:26 +0530
> From: ar...@collab.net
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: large number of large binary files in subversion
>
On Tuesday 24 May 2011 12:58 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:07:50PM +0400, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
In svn 1.7 there is pristine storage area in the working copy, where
all present files are stored by their checksums. If I understand this
pristine storage correctly, if yo
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
> wrote:
> > 2011/5/23 Mark Phippard :
> >> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> >>> Bob Archer wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 at 13:54:59 -0400:
> I can't imagine that this would need to move the file over the
> network
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:07:50PM +0400, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> In svn 1.7 there is pristine storage area in the working copy, where
> all present files are stored by their checksums. If I understand this
> pristine storage correctly, if you move a file remotely on the server
> (svn mv URL UR
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Konstantin Kolinko
wrote:
> 2011/5/23 Mark Phippard :
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>>> Bob Archer wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 at 13:54:59 -0400:
I can't imagine that this would need to move the file over the network
since i
2011/5/23 Mark Phippard :
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>> Bob Archer wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 at 13:54:59 -0400:
>>> I can't imagine that this would need to move the file over the network
>>> since it all happens server side. Although, I guess when you do an
>>> upd
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Bob Archer wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 at 13:54:59 -0400:
>> I can't imagine that this would need to move the file over the network
>> since it all happens server side. Although, I guess when you do an
>> update it might bring the file down ag
Bob Archer wrote on Mon, May 23, 2011 at 13:54:59 -0400:
> I can't imagine that this would need to move the file over the network
> since it all happens server side. Although, I guess when you do an
> update it might bring the file down again rather than doing a local
> move/rename.
update used t
> I keep my personal photos and videos in Subversion.
> Total repository size is currently 475 GB. There are
> some large (1-4 GB) video files. Everything seems to
> work fine.
>
> Some details: I'm still running Subversion 1.4.6 on the
> server (FSFS, CentOS 5, x86_64). Running 1.6.16
> cmdlin
I keep my personal photos and videos in Subversion.
Total repository size is currently 475 GB. There are
some large (1-4 GB) video files. Everything seems to
work fine.
Some details: I'm still running Subversion 1.4.6 on the
server (FSFS, CentOS 5, x86_64). Running 1.6.16
cmdline client on Cent
On Fri, 2011-05-20, Winston Smith wrote:
> Sorry if this is the wrong list, but I'm curious about one thing:
> Are the SVN developers aware of any quirks in SVN in regards
> to storing a large number (say, 1000) very large binary files
> (say, 1GB each)? So, the entire repository would be 1TB of si
19 matches
Mail list logo
