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

Re: FSFS performance on NAS/NFS

From: Matt Sickler <crazyfordynamite_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-03-08 02:54:11 CET

we have these things called "servers" for a reason.
NFS, samba, the windows shit, NAS are all FILE servers
svnserve and apache are SUBVERSION servers
dont try to use one to do the others job - its hacky and very slow

On 3/7/07, Justin Johnson <justinjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recently read the following statement on the dev list and wanted to
> get some feedback.
> "For those people who are using a NAS to store the repository, FSFS
> really really really sucks."
> The rest of that thread describes proposals on how to improve its
> performance.
> In a conversation on the phone with CollabNet recently we were told
> there should be no problem using FSFS repositories on NAS/NFS. The
> comment above makes me think that isn't a good idea now. I know
> CollabNet uses Berkeley and NAS for their repositories. Perhaps this
> is one of the reasons why they aren't using FSFS.
> Can anyone give any feedback on the above comment and make a
> recommendation? We already are setting up hardware with NAS/NFS for
> storage based on CollabNet's recommendation, so if it would be better
> to go with Berkeley I'd like to know soon.
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 8 02:54:36 2007

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.