Ben Voigt wrote:
>> Have you considered that the change in TSVN may have exposed a problem
>> with Samba?
>>
>> If it works properly locally, and breaks on Samba, the problem must be
>> with Samba and/or the network. TSVN doesn't see the local and remote
>> paths differently.
>
> This ("the problem MUST be") is also false, for the same reasoning.
>
> "works locally" is not comprehensive enough testing to rule out bugs.
> For example, the difference in time taken to complete I/O operations
> could easily affect the behavior of a race condition. Overlapped I/O
> may complete in a different order over the network. Packet
> fragmentation can cause partial completion of operations. Virus scans
> could interact with network traffic. Lost packets could result in
> failed operations and trigger error handling and retry code that never
> gets exercised locally (this should not be dismissed as a "problem
> with the network") There are a LOT of other factors involved with
> accessing file shares beyond just Samba.
Not really.
Sure, the comparison between Samba and local harddrive access is not the
same and this could still be a bug in Subversion. But all your reasoning
goes away once you compare Samba shares and Windows shares: we never
heard of any problems with Windows network shares, only with Samba
shares. And those two have the same timing factors.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2008-08-27 09:01:50 CEST