Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:15, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
With this upgrade in place I will do a new dry-run for the FSFS
backend migration tomorrow morning.
The test run ran through without any problems. Here's some stats:
- dumping the existing repository took 12 minutes
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, if you want to take a look at this new repository, it's
under / root/fakesvn.
I moved this to the normal repos area and changed the group to
the zopesvn, so that everyone with access to the old repository
should have access to this one. The
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:57, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, if you want to take a look at this new repository, it's
under / root/fakesvn.
I moved this to the normal repos area and changed the group to
the zopesvn, so that everyone with access to the
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:57, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005, at 14:48, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim, if you want to take a look at this new repository, it's under
/ root/fakesvn.
I moved this to the normal repos area and changed the group to
the zopesvn, so that
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:15, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
With this upgrade in place I will do a new dry-run for the FSFS
backend migration tomorrow morning.
The test run ran through without any problems. Here's some stats:
- dumping the existing repository took 12 minutes and resulted in a
1.1 GB
I'm going to go ahead with this update in hopes of resolving some
windows client problems that may be confounding our efforts to
run windows tests with buildbot.
Jim
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
Sounds good. I'll announce that the repo will be down for
Does that mean you're doing it? All necessary RPMs are on the box at /
root/svnupgrade/. Otherwise I can do it tomorrow morning (about 5 AM
EST)
jens
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm going to go ahead with this update in hopes of resolving some
windows client problems that
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm going to go ahead with this update in hopes of resolving some
windows client problems that may be confounding our efforts to
run windows tests with buildbot.
Done
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540)
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Does that mean you're doing it? All necessary RPMs are on the box at /
root/svnupgrade/. Otherwise I can do it tomorrow morning (about 5 AM EST)
Yes, already done. They are also available in my home directory. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Dec 2005, at 16:12, Jim Fulton wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
I'm going to go ahead with this update in hopes of resolving some
windows client problems that may be confounding our efforts to
run windows tests with buildbot.
Done
Great. I can see http://svn.zope.org works just fine.
With
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
Sounds good. I'll announce that the repo will be down for maintenance
on the 25th,
Just FYI, during a dry run this morning I hit an obvious snag: The
subversion packages on svn.zope.org are so ancient that they cannot
create FSFS backends.
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Jim Fulton wrote:
Sounds good. I'll announce that the repo will be down for maintenance
on the 25th,
Just FYI, during a dry run this morning I hit an obvious snag: The
subversion packages on svn.zope.org are so ancient that they cannot
On 20 Dec 2005, at 11:57, Jim Fulton wrote:
Since I cannot do any test right now for loading the dumpfile into
a FSFS-based repository I suggest doing this package upgrade
beforehand. It only takes a few minutes. I cannot make any
guarantees that nothing will break, however. The only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens,
I have the latest subversion-1.2.3-4 compiled for python2.3. I am happy
to make them available to you if you wish.
Alan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
On 20 Dec 2005, at 12:47, Alan Milligan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens,
I have the latest subversion-1.2.3-4 compiled for python2.3. I am
happy
to make them available to you if you wish.
Thanks for the help, Alan. I'm just going the route of least risk by
Rocky Burt wrote:
Perhaps the backend should be switched from bdb to fsfs (native
subversion backend type) ? I know it does away with a lot of these,
issues.
Yup, when someone has time to do it. AFAIK, it will involve
dumping the repository and reloading it. Past experience suggests that
On 19 Dec 2005, at 20:02, Jim Fulton wrote:
Rocky Burt wrote:
Perhaps the backend should be switched from bdb to fsfs (native
subversion backend type) ? I know it does away with a lot of these,
issues.
Yup, when someone has time to do it. AFAIK, it will involve
dumping the repository and
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 20:02, Jim Fulton wrote:
Rocky Burt wrote:
Perhaps the backend should be switched from bdb to fsfs (native
subversion backend type) ? I know it does away with a lot of these,
issues.
Yup, when someone has time to do it. AFAIK, it will involve
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:27, Jim Fulton wrote:
IMHO the process is straightforward and easy (except for the time
it will take),
That fact alone adds complication, as that down time needs to be
scheduled.
OK, well, the only complication is setting a date really. Someone
decides and
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:37, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
BTW, thanks for volunteering for this! It will be great not to
fool with the Berkeley DB anymore. :)
Umh, more like force-volunteered now ;) Which is fine, but in
return I'd like someone else (maybe you?) to herd the cats and come
up with a
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:27, Jim Fulton wrote:
IMHO the process is straightforward and easy (except for the time
it will take),
That fact alone adds complication, as that down time needs to be
scheduled.
OK, well, the only complication is setting a date really.
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:37, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
BTW, thanks for volunteering for this! It will be great not to
fool with the Berkeley DB anymore. :)
Umh, more like force-volunteered now ;) Which is fine, but in return
I'd like someone else (maybe you?) to herd the
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
Umh, more like force-volunteered now ;) Which is fine, but in
return I'd like someone else (maybe you?) to herd the cats and
come up with a time frame where this can be done, and
communicating it. I'll do everything on the technical side.
[Jim]
...
The whole repository is only about 800 megs. There are over 8 gigs
free. Are the dump file or the file-based repo much larger in
size the the Berkeley database?
FYI, if you don't want to read the code ;-), the book says an FSFS
repository is slightly smaller than the same thing
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005, at 21:44, Jim Fulton wrote:
Umh, more like force-volunteered now ;) Which is fine, but in
return I'd like someone else (maybe you?) to herd the cats and
come up with a time frame where this can be done, and
communicating it. I'll do everything on
On 19 Dec 2005, at 22:08, Tim Peters wrote:
[Jim]
...
The whole repository is only about 800 megs. There are over 8 gigs
free. Are the dump file or the file-based repo much larger in
size the the Berkeley database?
FYI, if you don't want to read the code ;-), the book says an FSFS
26 matches
Mail list logo
