<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title>Choosing a Server Configuration</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css" type="text/css" /><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.73.2" /><link rel="start" href="index.html" title="Version Control with Subversion" /><link rel="up" href="svn.serverconfig.html" title="Chapter 6. Server Configuration" /><link rel="prev" href="svn.serverconfig.overview.html" title="Overview" /><link rel="next" href="svn.serverconfig.svnserve.html" title="svnserve, a custom server" /></head><body><div class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="3" align="center">Choosing a Server Configuration</th></tr><tr><td width="20%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="svn.serverconfig.overview.html">Prev</a> </td><th width="60%" align="center">Chapter 6. Server Configuration</th><td width="20%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="svn.serverconfig.svnserve.html">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr /></div><div class="sect1" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="svn.serverconfig.choosing"></a>Choosing a Server Configuration</h2></div></div></div><p>So, which server should you use? Which is best?</p><p>Obviously, there's no right answer to that question. Every
team has different needs, and the different servers all
represent different sets of tradeoffs. The Subversion project
itself doesn't endorse one server or another, or consider either
server more “<span class="quote">official</span>” than another.</p><p>Here are some reasons why you might choose one deployment
over another, as well as reasons you
might <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> choose one.</p><div class="sect2" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="svn.serverconfig.choosing.svnserve"></a>The <span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> Server</h3></div></div></div><div class="variablelist"><dl><dt><span class="term">Why you might want to use it:</span></dt><dd><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>Quick and easy to set
up.</p></li><li><p>Network protocol is stateful and
noticeably faster than WebDAV.</p></li><li><p>No need to create system accounts on
server.</p></li><li><p>Password is not passed over the
network.</p></li></ul></div></dd><dt><span class="term">Why you might want to avoid it:</span></dt><dd><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>By default, only one authentication method
is available, the network protocol is not encrypted,
and the server stores cleartext passwords. (All these
things can be changed by configuring SASL, but it's a
bit more work to do.)</p></li><li><p>No logging of any kind, not even
errors.</p></li><li><p>No built-in web browsing. (You'd have to
install a separate web server and some CGI software to
add this.)</p></li></ul></div></dd></dl></div></div><div class="sect2" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="svn.serverconfig.choosing.svn-ssh"></a><span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> over SSH</h3></div></div></div><div class="variablelist"><dl><dt><span class="term">Why you might want to use it:</span></dt><dd><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>Network protocol is stateful and
noticeably faster than WebDAV.</p></li><li><p>You can take advantage of existing ssh
accounts and user infrastructure.</p></li><li><p>All network traffic is
encrypted.</p></li></ul></div></dd><dt><span class="term">Why you might want to avoid it:</span></dt><dd><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>Only one choice of authentication
method.</p></li><li><p>No logging of any kind, not even
errors.</p></li><li><p>Requires users to be in same system group, or
use a shared ssh key.</p></li><li><p>If used improperly, can lead to file permissions
problems.</p></li></ul></div></dd></dl></div></div><div class="sect2" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="svn.serverconfig.choosing.apache"></a>The Apache HTTP Server</h3></div></div></div><div class="variablelist"><dl><dt><span class="term">Why you might want to use it:</span></dt><dd><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>Allows Subversion to use any of the
numerous authentication systems already integrated
with Apache.</p></li><li><p>No need to create system accounts on
server.</p></li><li><p>Full Apache logging.</p></li><li><p>Network traffic can be encrypted via
SSL.</p></li><li><p>HTTP(S) can usually go through corporate
firewalls.</p></li><li><p>Built-in repository browsing via web
browser.</p></li><li><p>Repository can be mounted as a network
drive for transparent version control. (See
<a class="xref" href="svn.webdav.autoversioning.html" title="Autoversioning">the section called “Autoversioning”</a>.)</p></li></ul></div></dd><dt><span class="term">Why you might want to avoid it:</span></dt><dd><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>Noticeably slower than svnserve, because
HTTP is a stateless protocol and requires more
turnarounds.</p></li><li><p>Initial setup can be complex.</p></li></ul></div></dd></dl></div></div><div class="sect2" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="svn.serverconfig.choosing.recommendations"></a>Recommendations</h3></div></div></div><p>In general, the authors of this book recommend a vanilla
<span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> installation for small teams just
trying to get started with a Subversion server; it's the
simplest to set up, and has the fewest maintenance issues.
You can always switch to a more complex server
deployment as your needs change.</p><p>Here are some general recommendations and tips, based on
years of supporting users:</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul type="disc"><li><p>If you're trying to set up the simplest possible
server for your group, then a
vanilla <span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> installation is the
easiest, fastest route. Note, however, that your
repository data will be transmitted in the clear over the
network. If your deployment is entirely within your
company's LAN or VPN, this isn't an issue. If the
repository is exposed to the wide-open internet, then you
might want to make sure that either the repository's
contents aren't sensitive (e.g. it contains only
open-source code), or that you go the extra mile in
configuring SASL to encrypt network communications.</p></li><li><p>If you need to integrate with existing legacy identity
systems (LDAP, Active Directory, NTLM, X.509, etc.), then
you must use either the Apache-based server
or <span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> configured with SASL. If
you absolutely need server-side logs of either server
errors or client activities, then an Apache-based server
is your only option.</p></li><li><p>If you've decided to use either Apache or stock
<span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span>, create a
single <code class="literal">svn</code> user on your system and run
the server process as that user. Be sure to make the
repository directory wholly owned by
the <code class="literal">svn</code> user as well. From a security
point of view, this keeps the repository data nicely
siloed and protected by operating system filesystem
permissions, changeable by only the Subversion server
process itself.</p></li><li><p>If you have an existing infrastructure heavily based
on SSH accounts, and if your users already have system
accounts on your server machine, then it makes sense to
deploy an svnserve-over-ssh solution. Otherwise, we don't
widely recommend this option to the public. It's
generally considered safer to have your users access the
repository via (imaginary) accounts managed
by <span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> or Apache, rather than by
full-blown system accounts. If your deep desire for
encrypted communication still draws you to this option, we
recommend using Apache with SSL
or <span class="command"><strong>svnserve</strong></span> with SASL encryption
instead.</p></li><li><p>Do <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be seduced by the simple
idea of having all of your users access a repository
directly via <code class="literal">file://</code> URLs. Even if
the repository is readily available to everyone via
network share, this is a bad idea. It removes any layers
of protection between the users and the repository: users
can accidentally (or intentionally) corrupt the repository
database, it becomes hard to take the repository offline
for inspection or upgrade, and it can lead to a mess of
file-permissions problems (see
<a class="xref" href="svn.serverconfig.multimethod.html" title="Supporting Multiple Repository Access Methods">the section called “Supporting Multiple Repository Access Methods”</a>.) Note
that this is also one of the reasons we warn against
accessing repositories via <code class="literal">svn+ssh://</code>
URLs—from a security standpoint, it's effectively
the same as local users accessing
via <code class="literal">file://</code>, and can entail all the
same problems if the administrator isn't careful.</p></li></ul></div></div></div><div class="navfooter"><hr /><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="svn.serverconfig.overview.html">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="svn.serverconfig.html">Up</a></td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="svn.serverconfig.svnserve.html">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">Overview </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> svnserve, a custom server</td></tr></table></div></body></html>
