Failed to load the AuthzSVNAccessFile - Section header expected

[hquinn]

Hi guys! Well this is my first time I configure a Subversion server, I've
been following many tutorials and I read the SVN Book, but I just don't seem
to get my subversion server working. I have issues to see the repository,
import proyects and with the authentication of valid users:
I'm running the subversion server in Windows XP, Apache 2.0.63 and
Subversion 1.5.1
This the error I get in the Apache log when I enter a valid user and its
password:
[Mon Sep 29 10:26:09 2008] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Failed to load the
AuthzSVNAccessFile: C:\\svn_conf\\svn-authz.conf:1: Section header expected
[Mon Sep 29 10:26:09 2008] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Access denied:
'hazelq' GET android:/

This is the my httpd.conf file:

DocumentRoot "C:/Program Files/Apache Software Foundation/Apache2/htdocs"
LoadModule dav_module modules/mod_dav.so
LoadModule dav_svn_module modules/mod_dav_svn.so
LoadModule authz_svn_module modules/mod_authz_svn.so

<Location /svn/repos/>
DAV svn
SVNParentPath "c:\svn\repos"
# List repositories
SVNListParentPath on
AuthzSVNAccessFile c:/svn_conf/svn-authz.conf
Require valid-user
AuthType Basic
AuthName "Subversion Repository"
AuthUserFile c:/svn_conf/svn-password.pass
</Location>

This is the svn-authz.conf file:
[/]
hazelq=rw
*=r
[android:/]
hazelq=rw
[tutorial:/]
hazelq=rw
*=r

In the svnserve.conf file of the android repository I remove the comments of
the lines as the svn book mentions:
[general]
anon-access=read
auth-access=write
password-db=passwd

I really don't know what configuration I'm missing.
Thanks in advance

[IslandFever]

I have been encounted this problem ago. this maybe coursed by your auth file
encoding.
First time I saved my auth file with utf-8 ,apache gives me 403 error(Failed
to load the AuthzSVNAccessFile: E:\\svn\\repository\\conf\\access.auth:1:
Section header expected). But when I changed auth file into ACSII format it
works!!!!

Hopes this is helpful to you.

[s***@rbs.com]

Hi,

Any thoughts on which format (FSFS or BDB) is recommended for big projects.
From what I read on Internet Reviews, FSFS is always recommended.

Regards,
Sandeep.

***********************************************************************************
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority

This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
by replying to it and then delete the message from your
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent.

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Visit our websites at:
www.rbs.com
www.rbs.com/gbm
www.rbsgc.com
***********************************************************************************

[David Weintraub]

I've always used FSFS. Mainly because it is easier to maintain and has
fewer headaches. No wedging issues, etc.

However, FSFS can be slower in certain circumstances. Plus, FSFS makes
Subversion's data structure harder to modify. (This really doesn't
affect the users, but the developers. I bet the developers would
rather everyone use DBD, so they can simplify the structure).

Originally, Subversion only used DBD. FSFS was added in Subversion 1.2
and made the default in Subversion 1.3.

This page should explain everything:
<http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/fsfs>.
--
David Weintraub

Post by s***@rbs.com
Hi,
Any thoughts on which format (FSFS or BDB) is recommended for big projects.
From what I read on Internet Reviews, FSFS is always recommended.
Regards,
Sandeep.
***********************************************************************************
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
by replying to it and then delete the message from your
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
www.rbs.com
www.rbs.com/gbm
www.rbsgc.com
***********************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mark Eichin]

BDB got a really bad rep for needing recovery from
repository-destroying failures, back before FSFS came out - enough
that I stuck with CVS rather than migrate a large repository to SVN at
all until well after FSFS went in.

I don't know if it *still* has this reputation, but I don't really
need to find out, FSFS has been quite solid for us.

Post by David Weintraub
I've always used FSFS. Mainly because it is easier to maintain and has
fewer headaches. No wedging issues, etc.
However, FSFS can be slower in certain circumstances. Plus, FSFS makes
Subversion's data structure harder to modify. (This really doesn't
affect the users, but the developers. I bet the developers would
rather everyone use DBD, so they can simplify the structure).
Originally, Subversion only used DBD. FSFS was added in Subversion 1.2
and made the default in Subversion 1.3.
<http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/fsfs>.
--
David Weintraub

Post by s***@rbs.com
Hi,
Any thoughts on which format (FSFS or BDB) is recommended for big projects.
From what I read on Internet Reviews, FSFS is always recommended.
Regards,
Sandeep.
***********************************************************************************
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender
by replying to it and then delete the message from your
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for
changes made to this message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
www.rbs.com
www.rbs.com/gbm
www.rbsgc.com
***********************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jan Hendrik]

Concerning Re: FSFS vs BDB

Post by Mark Eichin
BDB got a really bad rep for needing recovery from
repository-destroying failures, back before FSFS came out - enough
that I stuck with CVS rather than migrate a large repository to SVN at
all until well after FSFS went in.
I don't know if it *still* has this reputation, but I don't really
need to find out, FSFS has been quite solid for us.

This reputation still seems to prevail. However, repository wedging
had been a major headache when we used SVN here from versions
0.27 to 1.0 at which piont we broke off. While the actual reason
was not BDB but supposedly SVN when a committed revision
would neither show in updates nor could be committed again, it
was not just the BDB issue either, but the general trouble we had
gone through with all the alpha versions which paved the way for
this decision. Lesson #1: Don't use alpha/beta stuff for anything
but fooling around.

Somewhere in 1.2.x with new BDB versions implemented and in
the hope of greater general maturaty we gave SVN another try and
have not had any issue with BDB or the repository since. We
never used FSFS other than for testing dump/load speed (the
difference is significant with loading though I suspect that there is a
penalty in overall use speed with FSFS). Lesson #2: A good
reputation is hard to win, easily lost, and almost impossible to win
back.

Two things keep us from switching to FSFS even just for a
practical test period:

-- Never touch a running system. And BDB runs now.

-- I don't like the idea of having thousands of folders with thousands
of files each. It raises the chance of troubles and I guess one
damaged file would make the repository as inaccessible as a
corrupted DB file.

Just my tuppence, I'm no expert in neither SVN nor BDB internals.
All this with Windows 2K/XP as OS. Repository accessed per
Apache 2.0.x on the LAN.

Jan Hendrik
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:

Erfolg erübrigt Hilfe; Abhängigkeit fordert heraus,
und nur Abhängigkeit kann dem Gutmenschen bringen,
was seine Seele erheischt: die Befriedigung des Gutseins,
selbst wenn es nichts oder wenig Gutes bewirkt
oder gar für das Böse Verständnis aufbringt.
-- Robert B. Goldmann, Die trügerische Leichtigkeit des Gut=
seins
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 13. Juli 2007

[Mark Eichin]

Post by Jan Hendrik
Two things keep us from switching to FSFS even just for a
-- Never touch a running system. And BDB runs now.

Definitely. (And you've probably been doing regular "svnadmin dump"
backups, so even if there were still corruption issues, you'd be able
to recover from them...)

Post by Jan Hendrik
-- I don't like the idea of having thousands of folders with thousands
of files each. It raises the chance of troubles and I guess one
damaged file would make the repository as inaccessible as a
corrupted DB file.

That, I'd have to take issue with - pre 1.5 you have *two* directories
with thousands of files each (you have a pair of files per *delta*, it
doesn't matter what your hierarchy looks like); in 1.5 with sharding,
you probably have hundreds but with only a thousand files each - and
they're *static*, none of these files are written to once created.
This is far less filesystem churn than, say, my personal photo gallery
produces :-) On top of that, the unix filesystem has had a lot more
scrutiny in a much wider range of cases than BDB itself ever will.

Post by Jan Hendrik
Just my tuppence, I'm no expert in neither SVN nor BDB internals.

I've looked at them more closely than I'd hoped to (my name is on some
of the very early BDB bugfixes from the Kerberos days, which is one
reason I'm a little twitchy about it :-)

Post by Jan Hendrik
All this with Windows 2K/XP as OS. Repository accessed per
Apache 2.0.x on the LAN.

We use Debian and svn+ssh on an fsfs repository (18G/90k revisions, 5
years of development, 300+ branches, converted from CVS a few years
back.) Weekly full backups, nightly incrementals, plus an internal
forum that gets diff postings from mailer.py if we ever need to do any
severe recovery (we haven't - we test the backups regularly, but
haven't needed them.)

[Jan Hendrik]

Concerning Re: FSFS vs BDB

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jan Hendrik

Post by Jan Hendrik
Two things keep us from switching to FSFS even just for a
-- Never touch a running system. And BDB runs now.

Definitely. (And you've probably been doing regular "svnadmin dump"
backups, so even if there were still corruption issues, you'd be able
to recover from them...)

Part of the post-commit hook is an incremental dump added. At
some "round" points pristine incremental dumps (e.g. revs. 1-500)
are stored away and a new one started for the hook.

Post by Jan Hendrik
-- I don't like the idea of having thousands of folders with
thousands of files each. It raises the chance of troubles and I
guess one damaged file would make the repository as inaccessible as
a corrupted DB file.

That, I'd have to take issue with - pre 1.5 you have *two* directories
with thousands of files each (you have a pair of files per *delta*, it
doesn't matter what your hierarchy looks like); in 1.5 with sharding,
you probably have hundreds but with only a thousand files each - and
they're *static*, none of these files are written to once created.
This is far less filesystem churn than, say, my personal photo gallery
produces :-) On top of that, the unix filesystem has had a lot more
scrutiny in a much wider range of cases than BDB itself ever will.

I should have added NTFS filesystem.

Post by Jan Hendrik
Just my tuppence, I'm no expert in neither SVN nor BDB internals.

I've looked at them more closely than I'd hoped to (my name is on some
of the very early BDB bugfixes from the Kerberos days, which is one
reason I'm a little twitchy about it :-)

There you could do more than I :-)

Jan Hendrik
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:

There is a limit to the legitimate interference
of collective opinion with individual independence:
and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment,
is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs,
as protection against political despotism.
-- John Stuart Mill