[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: NFS performance regression in 1.9

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:39:53 +0100

Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> writes:

> And in another thread (on IRC, I think) we talked about not recommending
> NFS because it's not reliable given our requirement for atomic renames.

Lots of people, including Subversion developers, use working copies on
NFS successfully. It may not be perfect but it works well enough in
lots of cases. Pointing out potential pitfalls is fine, any sort of
blanket ban would be odd. Repositories on NFS might be more vulnerable.

I think the usual problem for NFS rename is that while the underlying
filesystem implements an atomic rename the mechanism that reports back
to the client may fail. Such an error may cause the client to exit with
an error but the working copy itself is probably OK.

All filesystems can have bugs. How likely is NFS to fail for a typical
user of Subversion working copies on NFS? Is NFS less reliable than a
local filesystem that uses LVM+mdadm+ZFS/BtrFS? Is NFS less reliable
than the firmware in a h/w RAID card?

Philip Martin
Received on 2015-10-15 19:40:00 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.