You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Robert Spier <rs...@pobox.com> on 2003/04/02 18:51:44 UTC
Re: bdb on nfs
> and it states:
> Some Linux releases are known to not support complete semantics for
> the POSIX fsync call on NFS-mounted filesystems. No Berkeley DB files
> should be placed on NFS-mounted filesystems on these systems.
> therefor i'm wondering why there seems to be a common understanding,
> that bdb does not work on nfs.
It "works" - mostly, until it potentially starts to corrupt your data.
Any sort of locking on NFS is somewhat of a hack - it might work most
of the time - but when it doesn't - you'll wonder why you did it in
the first place.
Recently at $DAY_JOB, we had to back off using a networked BDB system
because we were seeing NFS related corruption. (Different hosts would
see different views of the BDBs.) Quite nasty.
(And this is on a relatively recent Linux.)
SleepCat said that they Linux issues they mention were generally on
much older kernels.
Concurrency is hard. NFS comes close.
-R
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: bdb on nfs
Posted by Robert Spier <rs...@pobox.com>.
Michael Price wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> Concurrency is hard. NFS comes close.
> > And gladly, most other network filesystems you can find today don't just
> > come close, they get it right.
> > :)
> Name two that work on Windows AND Unix and aren't beta.
> :)
And don't require custom on-disk formats... etc
(Anyway, I think we're off topic for dev@svn)
-R
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: bdb on nfs
Posted by solo turn <so...@yahoo.com>.
--- Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> Concurrency is hard. NFS comes close.
> >
> > And gladly, most other network filesystems you can find today
> don't just
> > come close, they get it right.
> > :)
>
> Name two that work on Windows AND Unix and aren't beta.
>
> :)
which ones are you thinking of (i do not care if they work on BOTH)?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: bdb on nfs
Posted by Michael Price <mp...@atl.lmco.com>.
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> Concurrency is hard. NFS comes close.
>
> And gladly, most other network filesystems you can find today don't just
> come close, they get it right.
> :)
Name two that work on Windows AND Unix and aren't beta.
:)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: bdb on nfs
Posted by Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>.
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 01:51 PM, Robert Spier wrote:
>> and it states:
>> Some Linux releases are known to not support complete semantics for
>> the POSIX fsync call on NFS-mounted filesystems. No Berkeley DB files
>> should be placed on NFS-mounted filesystems on these systems.
>> therefor i'm wondering why there seems to be a common understanding,
>> that bdb does not work on nfs.
>
> It "works" - mostly, until it potentially starts to corrupt your data.
>
> Any sort of locking on NFS is somewhat of a hack - it might work most
> of the time - but when it doesn't - you'll wonder why you did it in
> the first place.
>
> Recently at $DAY_JOB, we had to back off using a networked BDB system
> because we were seeing NFS related corruption. (Different hosts would
> see different views of the BDBs.) Quite nasty.
>
> (And this is on a relatively recent Linux.)
>
> SleepCat said that they Linux issues they mention were generally on
> much older kernels.
>
> Concurrency is hard. NFS comes close.
And gladly, most other network filesystems you can find today don't
just come close, they get it right.
:)
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org