Re: Collective wisdom about repos on NFS accessed by concurrent clients (== corruption!?)

2013-04-07 Thread Kenneth Ölwing
Thanks for suggestions, I don't think there's any internal debugging that helps at this point. Usually errors pointing to corruption are caused by a chain of syscalls failing in some way, and the final error shows only the last one, so strace() output is very interesting. Right - a problem

Re: Collective wisdom about repos on NFS accessed by concurrent clients (== corruption!?)

2013-04-05 Thread Kenneth Ölwing
anyone authoritatively state anything either way? TIA, ken1 On 2013-03-28 11:22, Kenneth Ölwing wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to hear some wisdom on the subject so I can decide if I'm chasing a pipe dream or if it should be expected to work and I just need to work out the kinks. Finding things like

Re: Collective wisdom about repos on NFS accessed by concurrent clients (== corruption!?)

2013-04-05 Thread Kenneth Ölwing
On 2013-04-05 15:42, Thomas Rast wrote: Can you run the same tests under strace or similar, and gather the relevant outputs? Otherwise it's probably very hard to say what is going wrong. In particular we've had some reports on lustre that boiled down to impossible returns from libc functions,

Collective wisdom about repos on NFS accessed by concurrent clients (== corruption!?)

2013-03-28 Thread Kenneth Ölwing
Hi, I'm hoping to hear some wisdom on the subject so I can decide if I'm chasing a pipe dream or if it should be expected to work and I just need to work out the kinks. Finding things like this makes it sound possible: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/122670 but