I have also personally experienced a situation with NetApp servers where under heavy load a rename(a,b) call became an unlink(b) call, which caused new committed data to be silently lost. It's been a number of years since this has happened, but keep an eye open for it.
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Andrew McGhee writes: >> >> I've heard it mentioned on this newsgroup that mixing NFS with CVS is a bad >> idea. >> >> Can anyone elaborate more one this? >There have been lots of reports of repository corruption caused by >interoperability problems between different NFS client and server >implementations. The most common problem is missing data: the file >contains a block of NULs instead of the correct data. >Since you're considering using a system that is specifically designed to >be an NFS server, it's reasonable to conclude that it has been throughly >tested with a wide variety of client implementations and thus is >unlikely to have such problems, particularly if the NFS client machine >is a common commercial platform. I would be much more cautious with >something like a Linux machine, since the server manufacturer has >probably not tested it as extensively, if at all. (Many of the reports >of corruption have involved Linux, but it's impossible to tell whether >that means that Linux is more trouble prone or just more popular. If it >is more trouble prone, it's impossible to tell whether that is because >of bugs in the Linux NFS code or if it just exposes bugs in the other >machine's server code.) >So, it isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I would proceed cautiously. >You might want to grab the script that was posted here a while back to >check the repository for damage and run it nightly for a while. >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
