On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 01:51 PM, Robert Spier wrote:
>> and it states:
>> Some Linux releases are known to not support complete semantics for
>> the POSIX fsync call on NFS-mounted filesystems. No Berkeley DB files
>> should be placed on NFS-mounted filesystems on these systems.
>> therefor i'm wondering why there seems to be a common understanding,
>> that bdb does not work on nfs.
>
> It "works" - mostly, until it potentially starts to corrupt your data.
>
> Any sort of locking on NFS is somewhat of a hack - it might work most
> of the time - but when it doesn't - you'll wonder why you did it in
> the first place.
>
> Recently at $DAY_JOB, we had to back off using a networked BDB system
> because we were seeing NFS related corruption. (Different hosts would
> see different views of the BDBs.) Quite nasty.
>
> (And this is on a relatively recent Linux.)
>
> SleepCat said that they Linux issues they mention were generally on
> much older kernels.
>
> Concurrency is hard. NFS comes close.
And gladly, most other network filesystems you can find today don't
just come close, they get it right.
:)
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 3 08:29:44 2003