On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Olivier Mascia <o...@integral.be> wrote: > > Is "fossil server" generally deemed sufficient for a small LAN (lab) of let's > say < 10 developers each with their own clone ? > Or should a proper HTTP server be used as front end to SCGI mode of fossil?
That’s how I run Fossil on private civilized LANs. (As opposed to LANs where bad actors are expected to be present.) I don’t bother with the HTTPS front-end proxy in that case. > cloning a 2 GB repository through http over 1 Gbps LAN is curiously slow and > I wonder why. A Fossil clone is not a linear file copy operation. The server pulls some data from its database, ships it over the network, then the client has to integrate that into its local database. Back and forth it goes until the whole thing is transferred. Then the client’s going to spend a bunch more time reorganizing what it received into an optimal format. This is one reason why Fossil reports round trips during clone and sync operations. It’s good that it’s as low a value as it is, but it isn’t yet “1”, the ideal. > Not that we'll clone every day of course, but it looks so slow that it > questions stability. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen Fossil crash in the years I’ve been running it. Keep in mind that sqlite.org runs on Fossil. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
