Re: upgrading server
Don't forget that svnadmin dump/load and svnsync don't preserve hook scripts or other ancillary data that might be in your repository directory on the server, so if you have hook scripts, authorization rules or other customizations, carry those over to the new server manually. And of course any configuration files for httpd or svnserve.
RE: upgrading server
>> Does anyone know how long it would take to export the repository of this >> size? This will give us an estimate how long to schedule down time and cut >> off time. Svnsync is the easy option. If you insist on doing a dump/load, then a) you can time a test run of a dump/load, and b) "svnadmin dump" allows you to specify revision ranges which means you can do incremental dumps. You can dump/load the bulk of the repo now and then during the migration, run another dump/load to catch any new commits. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.migrate The only caveat I can think of is if someone changes revision properties (e.g. the commit message) between the time of the initial dump and the migration. But you can track/prevent those with a hook script. (And is another reason why svnsync is preferred.)
Re: upgrading server
On 7/25/2017 11:00 AM, Andy So wrote: We have an old subversion /version 1.4.3 (r23084) /running on Solaris. We would like to upgrade to use new hardware on Linux based OS (CentOS 6.9), possibly version 1.8.x or 1.9.x Our plan is to installed and configure the latest SVN on CentOS 6.9. Then go through dump and load of the repository as described in various online post and documentations. The repository is quite large…guessing the size to be in the order of 20-40GB Before we start undertaking such tasks 1.Does anyone know if there are there any problem/gotcha in migrating the repository? 2.Does anyone know how long it would take to export the repository of this size? This will give us an estimate how long to schedule down time and cut off time. Thanks for any insight. I recommend CentOS 7.x; CentOS 6.x is nearing the end of its support lifetime. I also installed an SSD on my new machine - much faster than rotating media, and Subversion's "write once" philosophy (old revisions are essentially immutable) works well on an SSD. -- David Chapman dcchap...@acm.org Chapman Consulting -- San Jose, CA Software Development Done Right. www.chapman-consulting-sj.com
RE: svn vs. git
It’s been awhile, but isn’t changing the commit message (after a push) potentially problematic in git?
Re: upgrading server
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Andy So wrote: > We have an old subversion *version 1.4.3 (r23084) *running on Solaris. > > We would like to upgrade to use new hardware on Linux based OS (CentOS > 6.9), possibly version 1.8.x or 1.9.x > > > > Our plan is to installed and configure the latest SVN on CentOS 6.9. Then > go through dump and load of the repository as described in various online > post and documentations. The repository is quite large…guessing the size > to be in the order of 20-40GB > > > > Before we start undertaking such tasks > > 1. Does anyone know if there are there any problem/gotcha in > migrating the repository? > > 2. Does anyone know how long it would take to export the repository > of this size? This will give us an estimate how long to schedule down time > and cut off time. > > > > Thanks for any insight. > Dump and load is a good idea because it lets the repository be rewritten using the newer code and repository format which will give you a smaller repository that will run a little faster. That said you do not HAVE to dump/load. You have other options: 1. Just move the repository folder to the new server. Perhaps using tar and then moving the archive. 2. Instead of using dump/load, use svnsync. This gives all the benefits of the dump/load but allows you to shrink your downtime to almost nothing. Just svnsync the repository to the new server. This will probably take a long time, but it does not matter since the original server can be running while it happens. At the time of your choosing, do a final svnsync, and then shutdown the old server and use the new one. 3. Do option 1 now and then do a dump/load or svnsync at some future time that is more convenient for downtime. It will probably run faster since it is on new and better hardware too. There are some gotchas no matter what: 1. Does the new server have a new hostname or do you intend to update DNS to point to new server? If you are not doing the latter, then all of your existing working copies and scripts have to be modified for the new server. Also any use of svn:externals property has to be modified. 2. With an old repository there is a good chance you will run into bugs in your data that cause svnsync or load to fail. There are workaround for different failures but be prepared to run into them and account for finding the solutions. SVN 1.8 and 1.9 have added various options to let you workaround some of the known bugs. A common problem is having svn: properties that are not UTF-8 encoded or do not have LF line endings. svnsync has this option to work around the encoding problem: --source-prop-encoding ARG : convert translatable properties from encoding ARG to UTF-8. If not specified, then properties are presumed to be encoded in UTF-8. And it automatically fixes the LF problems. svnadmin load does not have any options to fix the problems, but you can add the --bypass-prop-validation option to ignore them and just carry the problems into your new repository. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
upgrading server
We have an old subversion version 1.4.3 (r23084) running on Solaris. We would like to upgrade to use new hardware on Linux based OS (CentOS 6.9), possibly version 1.8.x or 1.9.x Our plan is to installed and configure the latest SVN on CentOS 6.9. Then go through dump and load of the repository as described in various online post and documentations. The repository is quite large…guessing the size to be in the order of 20-40GB Before we start undertaking such tasks 1. Does anyone know if there are there any problem/gotcha in migrating the repository? 2. Does anyone know how long it would take to export the repository of this size? This will give us an estimate how long to schedule down time and cut off time. Thanks for any insight.
Re: svn vs. git
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:38:38 +, Nathan Hartman wrote: > ... > > Is that such a big deal? > > The big deal is a slightly different point. Making commit 'offline' > not only allows me to make commits while in the middle of nowhere > (and here in germany this easily includes trains). > Quite a few people seem to be working on trains during their commute. I have to say that I've never been able to concentrate with so much noise, motion, and distraction going on, and I don't see myself able to produce one coherent commit let alone more than one. I once worked in a car for one hour to solve a customer emergency. For some reason, looking at my computer screen while in a moving vehicle made me dizzy for hours afterwards. The code I wrote worked (miraculously) but on further examination after the fact, it was some of the most atrocious code I've ever seen. Kudos to all who can get real work done while on board a plane, train, or automobile. :-)
Re: svn vs. git
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:59:29PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > It even has internal libraries with stable API's that > allow writing plugins and GUI's on top rather than them having to drive a > command line utility. This is something git developers who I know personally *really want*. Unfortunately it's hard to get there when starting from a pile of perl scripts and tiny C utils with main() functions :-/ Nothing is perfect.
Re: svn vs. git
Op 25 jul. 2017 9:48 a.m. schreef "Andreas Krey" : On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:38:38 +, Nathan Hartman wrote: ... > Subversion is a very good system. It doesn't get the credit it deserves, Please. git managed to be faster in providing actually working (i.e. tracked) merges than subversion, and then there was the --reintegrate debacle that took another five years to sort out. Please. svn managed to be faster in providing granular access control, sparse checkouts, handling large repositories and is *vastly* more simple to use than git. It even has internal libraries with stable API's that allow writing plugins and GUI's on top rather than them having to drive a command line utility. So ... it depends what you're after. git being faster at having tracked merges doesn't make Subversion a bad system. -- Johan
Re: svn vs. git
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:48:07AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote: > This also means that I can't maintain a patched version of > svn (or anything in an svn repo) without having commit > privilege to the source repo This is obviously true, and a reason for why the Subversion project itself has a very relaxed commit access policy. Need a branch? Just show a nice diff to any full committer and they can make it happen: https://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#partial-commit-access Granted, this is still an extra hoop you might not want to jump through, in which case using a git mirror simply makes more sense. And other projects using SVN may be less open about this, of course. The point is that people don't need to be walled off still stands. It is a process problem, not a technical one, unless you're working at Linux kernel scale with a community of thousands across various organizations, which Subversion was never intended for. You might remember the page on subversion.tigris.org around the time git was first created, which asked people to stop suggesting that Linus should use SVN: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/1.2.x/www/subversion-linus.html