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

Re: svn commit: r1787216 - /subversion/site/publish/faq.html

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_apache.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 18:10:02 +0100

On 16.03.2017 17:18, julianfoad_at_apache.org wrote:
> Author: julianfoad
> Date: Thu Mar 16 16:18:18 2017
> New Revision: 1787216
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1787216&view=rev
> Log:
> Clarify the NFS FAQ a little.
>
> * faq.html
> (nfs): Clarify by moving FSFS before BDB, adding emphasis to keywords,
> and removing a historical link.
>
> Modified:
> subversion/site/publish/faq.html
>
> Modified: subversion/site/publish/faq.html
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/publish/faq.html?rev=1787216&r1=1787215&r2=1787216&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/site/publish/faq.html (original)
> +++ subversion/site/publish/faq.html Thu Mar 16 16:18:18 2017
> @@ -1073,7 +1073,12 @@ server?
> title="Link to this section">&para;</a>
> </h3>
>
> -<p>If you are using a repository with the Berkeley DB back end
> +<p>If you are using the <b>FSFS repository back end</b> (which has
> +been the default since Subversion 1.2), then storing the repository on
> +a modern NFS server (i.e., one that supports locking) should be
> +fine.</p>

Well in fact it is not fine and we've known that for a while. NFS does
not guarantee that file renames are atomic, which is a pretty
fundamental requirement for FSFS. Also file locking in NFS is not
exactly reliable, whether or not the server is "modern".

IMO we should change this whole section to one sentence: "Do not put
your repository on NFS or any other networked file system."

-- Brane
Received on 2017-03-16 18:10:08 CET

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