On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 16.03.2017 17:18, julianf...@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. > html?rev=1787216&r1=1787215&r2=1787216&view=diff > > ============================================================ > ================== > > --- 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: https://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Server_performance_tuning_for_Linux_and_Unix -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
