On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
> 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.
> > ============================================================
> > --- 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">¶</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."
This is news to me. We have always stored all of our repositories on NFS.
I thought you just has to be on NFSv3 with file locking enabled?
Blair's tuning wiki seems to largely be about NFS as well:
Received on 2017-03-16 19:25:49 CET