Re: CVS problems?

Three things for me to say:
1. I would also prefer a partitioned setup like sf, but only for logical / 
structural reasons
2. There are _tons_ of different ways to balance load for this usecase, not 
only the project root partitioning. As only solution, this is one of the 
least flexible ones
3. Sun makes money by selling servers, telling everybody that you should spend 
a huge amount of money to get them, but then they will be better than any 
other solution, especially for mission critical. I bet they will do 
_anything_ not to run into performance problems...

Regards,
Rene 

On Wednesday 25 June 2003 00:24, Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting not to do it, sf is basically
> unusable at this point.
>
> I did look around at java.net though, and it would appear that each
> project is simply a module on the same cvs server/repo (/cvs on
> cvs.dev.java.net). There is no sourceforge style setup where each
> project gets its own repo, which can presumably be remapped at will to
> live on any machine in a farm. So unless I am really missing something,
> it's essentially impossible for java.net to handle increased load
> demands in the future by remapping stuff transparently. They will
> basically have to break metadata in checked out projects. Sort of
> short-sighted...
>
> Pat Lightbody wrote:
> >My personal opinion on this is that I'd trust Sun at this point more than
> >SourceForge. It isn't a critical move at this point, but others should
> >express their feelings. I'll also import a sample project in to java.net
> > to see how it all works out.
> >
> >-Pat
> >



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php