From dev-return-37764-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@subversion.apache.org Wed Apr 11 20:57:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 8244418064A for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:57:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 11685 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2018 18:57:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 11675 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2018 18:57:39 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) (207.244.88.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 18:57:39 +0000 Received: from zulu.23.e-reka.si (89-233-126-4.dynamic.t-2.net [89.233.126.4]) by mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 705A51D47 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 18:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: SVN working copy split DB vs. working area To: dev@subversion.apache.org References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Branko_=c4=8cibej?= Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Organization: The Apache Software Foundation Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:57:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB On 11.04.2018 20:27, Doug Robinson wrote: > Folks: > > I've now seen a request for this twice in as many days.  Once from > a customer and once from someone posting to a Subversion forum > here: > > https://www.svnforum.org/forum/opensource-subversion-forums/apache-subversion-1-8-support/80218-subversion-checkout-on-distrubuted-filesytem > > The general setup is that they want to have a working copy on a > Distributed File System (DFS, e.g. Lustre) and the DFS either is > very slow (when mounted with sufficient support for SQLite) or just > does not work due to a lack of support for SQLite - likely locking). > > One set of folks want to accelerate by doing parallel checkouts the > way they could do using SVN 1.6 (prior to the consolidated ".svn" > tree).  But SQLite locking will prevent that (unless I'm missing > something). > > Another set of folks is ok for having the ".svn" area on a local > file system (e.g. ext4) but want the rest of the working copy out > there on the DFS. > > NOTE: both sets of folks are experienced SVN users.  Both know and > have rejected "exporting" - they want a working copy. > > Has this subject come up before?  Is there a way to link a ".svn" > area to the rest of the working copy?  In other words, keeping the > housekeeping area separate/split from the rest of the working copy? > > Thoughts? One of the original design goals for the SQLite-based working copy was that the database could be hoisted out of the working copy proper and that multiple working copies could share the same database. However, there has been no real work done toward that goal. It's possible to move the .svn/wc.db database elsewhere and replace it with a symbolic link to the original database. However, I'm not too sure how that will help, since the SQLite journal files will still be created in .svn/. Also, this would have to be done manually for every external directory (which currently has its own, separate .svn/ directory). -- Brane