On 2/17/06, John Paul Ashenfelter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure this is 100% accurate -- one of the design goals of SVN > was to have an abstract network layer for allowing multiple ways to > access the repository. Thus the svnserver and apache/mod_dav_svn > options.
Yes, and they've done that. The design goal, however, wasn't necessarily to use multiple methods _concurrently_, just to have multiple methods available. > Depends on your needs -- svnserve is far easier to set up, Absolutely. > generally faster, and simpler to configure. I don't know about that. Trying to maintain a farm of svnserv instances to host multiple projects is bear. I tried. With Apache you get virtual hosts, Location for security, custom log formats, and mod_rewrite for creating the URL space that you want. Not a big deal for the simple case, but down the road, simple things tend to get more complex. > It also supports SSH tunneling, > which is a bonus in some situations (though I think svn+ssh is a pain > to configure) Perhaps on windows, on *nix, it's basically just a matter of adding the "+ssh" to your URL if you've already got ssh access (which is almost always the case), and skipping the "poke a hole in your firewall" step. > The SVN folks don't seem to think so > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.serverconfig.multimethod To quote the last line of that section: "We recommend you choose the server that best meets your needs and stick with it!" Backing reasons are provided throughout the section. > Note that the bulk of the problems are related to (a) BDB and (b) Linux. BDB doesn't help hide svn's issues, FSFS does. So yes and no. And the permission issues are with *nix, not Linux specifically. They'd also be applicable to windows installations if you've gone for broke with file system security. Windows defaults to it being pretty open, though, so no problem. > It's also worth pointing out lots of Unix-y folks are *still* running > Apache 1.3, while SVN *requires* Apache 2. Two copies of Apache can be > quite a load on busy dev servers :) Two copies of Apache is hardly a burden. The cost for the second instance is very likely less than 20M of RAM. It also lets you isolate the processes from your web server, which can add some fault tolerance to the setup. I don't run SVN repos on my web servers, but if I did, I'd probably look at installing a second Apache 2 instance for that reason alone. cheers, barneyb -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 100 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:232736 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
