* Roger Binns: > On 09/06/2015 11:13 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Surely that's not true, and NFS and SMB are fine as long as there >> is no concurrent access? > > And no program crashes, no network glitches, no optimisation in the > protocols to deal with latency, nothing else futzing with the files, > no programs futzing with them (backup agents, virus scanners etc), the > protocols are 100% complete compared to local file access, the > implementation of client and server for the protocol is 100% complete > and bug free, the operating systems don't treat network filesystems > sufficiently different to cause problems, you aren't using WAL, and > the list goes on. > > In other words it can superficially appear to work. But one day > you'll eventually notice corruption, post to this list, and be told > not to use network filesystems. The only variable is how long it > takes before you make that post.
Sorry, this all sounds a bit BS to me. Surely, as an fopen replacement, SQLite works with network file systems, be it the home NAS, or something in a typical datacenter. And if the SQLite locking doesn't work in practice (which I doubt, remote file systems are better at locking than they used to be), should we really fall back on lock files with user overrides? I hope not. (A lot of people run enterprise databases on NFS because that gives them snapshot-able storage and other goodies. Not everyone uses iSCSI and block devices.)
