On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Mads Kiilerich <m...@kiilerich.com> wrote: > On 04/21/2015 06:20 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Mads Kiilerich <m...@kiilerich.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> It is a bit weird that Kallithea pull request numbers are global. >>>>> Especially >>>>> in a site that is hosting repos for multiple independent users, it >>>>> would >>>>> make sense to have per repo numbering. Would that solve your case? Will >>>>> your >>>>> repos in the different instances be named differently? >>>> >>>> No, the different instances would operate on the same repositories >>>> with the same names (note that we're not using Kallithea for repo >>>> hosting, it is a mirror). >>> >>> >>> Using it as a mirror is fine ... but having multiple independent >>> instances >>> does not seem like something I can recommend. It would make more sense to >>> have multiple servers on the same database in some failover loadbalancing >>> setup. >> >> The reason we planned doing such a setup is that the network >> latency/bandwidth between sites is not always very good. If there is >> one single Kallithea instance in a given site, the developers from >> that site get a good experience, while the developers from a remote >> site may suffer high latencies. With a local database + instance this >> would be mitigated. > > > We have local mirrors for the actual cloning - using > https://bitbucket.org/Unity-Technologies/hgwebcachingproxy/commits/all and > https://bitbucket.org/Unity-Technologies/dynapath/commits/branch/default . > > Are you sure you need locally hosted Kallithea instances for the web UI? > Depending on the size of your changes and your workflow, the requirements > for bandwidth and latency might not be that high. Especially not to justify > the added complexity for users and admins for managing multiple instances. > >> Your suggestion of the same database and multiple Kallithea instances: >> how exactly does this work? Is all locking in place? And since the >> database is in one place: don't you suffer from the same network >> latency issue? > > > The database could perhaps be distributed, with one master for writing and > local mirrors for reading. The database access pattern might however not be > good for that; read only operations have too many writes. >
What you mean here is that Kallithea is not yet fit for this model? _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
