6

If I run svnserve.exe alongside Subversion Edge, would it cause any conflicts? We have someone who remotely checks in code, and he will be doing via https, but for everyone internally I want to take advantage of the higher speed that the plain svn protocol uses (SVN EDGE does not support the svn protocol).

I don't anticipate any problems with this, however, I do always like to double check before I set something up for production.

Álvaro González
  • 128,942
  • 37
  • 233
  • 325
Bender the Greatest
  • 12,311
  • 17
  • 65
  • 124
  • Why not using http/https internally as well. How large are your checkouts? – khmarbaise Mar 17 '11 at 17:16
  • About 1.5 gigs. A fresh checkout over the SVN protocol is 16x faster than doing it over SMB (which is what we are currently using now), and committing the same checkout as an initial checkin is about 4x faster than over SMB. Haven't done any tests with http speeds yet. – Bender the Greatest Mar 17 '11 at 18:46
  • SMB ? Means that you have your working copies on a SMB mounted drive ? – khmarbaise Mar 17 '11 at 18:58
  • Yes, and I realize that it's a bad idea, which is why I've been pushing for a better solution at my office. – Bender the Greatest Mar 17 '11 at 19:26
  • Use the local hard drives instead. Makes things faster. – khmarbaise Mar 17 '11 at 20:25
  • Well we have multiple people in the office working on this code at once. Unless I'm missing something, using the local drives isn't an option (unless we opt for git which would be too large of a change for my boss to accept). – Bender the Greatest Mar 17 '11 at 20:29
  • Everyone checkouts a working copy of the current state and commits back to the SVN repository. Others will do an svn update before and that's it. It sound like you didn't understand the concept of SVN ? (local working copies?)...I'm working with 50 people on the same project...but everyone has a local checkout of the project on it's own hard drive...Are you really using a single working copy? – khmarbaise Mar 18 '11 at 10:09
  • Oh sorry, read one of your previous responses wrong. The repos are housed on an SMB share, and the working copies are indeed local. I ran some speed tests though and on our network at least the times over http were almost identical to using plain svn, so there is no need to have two svn services running. – Bender the Greatest Mar 19 '11 at 14:15

1 Answers1

2

I have since implemented this setup for a client of ours, as long as Apache and svnserve are not listening on the same port (obviously) it should work fine.

Bender the Greatest
  • 12,311
  • 17
  • 65
  • 124
  • What happens when having a concurrent commit over http:// and svn:// at the same time into the same repository? I expect conflicts in this situation. – domih Apr 11 '13 at 16:04
  • 1
    I haven't received any complaints about this not working or becoming corrupt, I am under the impression that when committing to the repository that the database becomes locked until the operation finishes. If this is not the case, I suppose a quick way to protect against this would be to use a pre-commit hook script to prevent writing by more than one service to the database at the same time. – Bender the Greatest Apr 12 '13 at 12:28
  • Starting _svnserve_ with the _--read-only_ option did the trick for me as the svn:// service gets only read requests from the webportal to show developer activities. – domih Oct 04 '13 at 12:31