Re: Repository access woes

Marcus Comstedt wrote:
> Blaming the NFS implementation is fine in theory, but it doesn't
> really help making Subversion a "compelling replacement for CVS"...

Whether or not _your_ O/S has NFS which will support locking for some operations
is besides the point. The NetAPP people hired at least some of the Solaris NFS
development team for their NFS implementation, and hence they claim at least a
robust NFS implementation as Solaris has.

However, BerkeleyDB does not support /any/ NFS filesystem for the database. And
it would be silly for Subversion to try and support the very small subset of all
NFS filesystems that BDB /might/ work on with handholding, since everywhere else
that support would be useless.

The fact that _you_ have had no problems with CVS on an NFS partition doesn't
count for much. You may have been lucky so far (low concurrency CVS
repository?). The strong recomendation has always been (AFAIK) to not mix CVS
and NFS, no matter what O/S you are talking about.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4720 Boston Way
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5747
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org