Re: Merge tracking: will SQLite make NFS sad?
On 3/5/07, David Glasser <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Mark Phippard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't fsfs itself use similar locking mechanisms to what is described
> > those docs? I thought this was discussed once and that was the answer
> as to
> > why using SQLite was not making things any worse. Of course I suppose
> it is
> > possible that SQLite could be more dependent on them than the fsfs
> > implementation.
> My impression (which may be out of date) is that sqlite2 used only
> file-level locking (like fsfs), but sqlite3 uses byte-level locking.
> I don't know much about NFS, but this is certainly bad for AFS at
If the database writes are all being serialized at a higher level by fsfs
(meaning it ensures that only one transaction at a time is being written)
does that insulate us from problems at all? Or does the fact that other
client might be reading the database mean that corruption could happen? I
would assume it at least means that incorrect answers could be returned.
Received on Mon Mar 5 15:15:46 2007
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev