On 5/9/07, David Ferguson <ferguson.david@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please forgive me, but svnsync is completely useless in this situation. My
> users are all over the world at many different sites. They are all
> permitted to make changes and there would never be a case where a user would
> want a read-only copy. Therefore, svnsync can't help at all.
>
> My IT department is heavily invested in NFS and will never be swayed to use
> anything else. All interactive machines (such as my Subversion servers)
> mount all file systems via NFS from filers. I can't change that,
> unfortunately.
>
> Can anyone else comment on Matt's statement that Subversion repositories may
> not exist on NFS shares without problems, regardless of the repository
> access method used (svn://, svn+ssh://, http://, file://)?
As a general statement, it's wrong.
> If this is true,
> I'm completely shocked--our company will be forced to go back to CVS or
> worse, Clearcase.
Subversion repositories can exist on NFS shares without problems,
assuming your NFS implementation has working file locking
However, until 1.5, there are some situations where multiple servers
accessing the same NFS repository at the same time will cause some
commits to fail due to the stale file handle issue of NFS.
When i say multiple servers, i really mean multiple servers. There is
no problem with a single server accessing an NFS share.
This will not cause repository corruption, but is kind of annoying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 10 06:12:36 2007