Yup, Matt's right, we don't specifically test NFS mounting. I've always been a little wary of it with Subversion, however as per the official FAQ it should work fine - [url]http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#nfs[/url] - so long as you use a modern NFS version correctly mounted to support locking. At that point you're in the realms of Subversion behaviour rather than anything specific to uberSVN.
As for the uberSVN configuration itself, this is stored internally in the /opt/wandisco file structure. One feature we have planned is the ability to take a backup of the configuration in an XML format and to load that back in. We dropped it from the spec for release due to time constraints but this will be added back into the workstack for future development and the feature certainly should be available before we come out of the beta stage.
Thanks for the reply.
Is the team/user etc... (access to the svn server) is store in ubersvn conf or in the svnserver conf ?
because that's the more important stuff in case need to rebuild.
the social and other nice feature of ubersvn is nice but not so critical.
dont get me wrong , i am interested in ubersvn because of all those feature, but the heart of all of this is the "sources" and the availability of it :)
I am really looking forward to see the possibility of dumping the config to XML files.
Unfortunately the data store is an embedded database, rather than a human readable file, so you'd need to back up the whole of /opt/wandisco to be able to recover from an outage on the disk. I'll see where I can get to on the xml backup / restore functionality. If I had to guess I'd say we could have that within 6 weeks or so, but don't hold me to it as it depends on a few other things coming together. I will do my best to keep you up to date on this one...
I almost finish my initial testing of this product and for now i can say , i am please with it.
I will put it in use to see how things go (no worry i know it is still in beta stage :) and i know what that's mean ).
one things i notice while i was testing is the relative gain of speed , i dont know if it is because of the fast install i made to compare, but ubersvn was faster than the normal apache+svn setup , i use for those test.
can you confirm ?
Possibly we're faster based on some of our chosen defaults for Apache, but I think that will depend more on how you set-up your own Apache including which modules you load etc etc. it's hard to be certain about something as subjective as speed, but we certainly appreciate the feedback.
If there's anything at all you find missing during your use of uberSVN please don't hesitate to let me know.