[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS over NFS

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: CVS over NFS
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:13:50 -0400 (EDT)

[ On , May 30, 2002 at 09:40:46 (+0200), Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS over NFS
> * Derek Robert Price 
> | Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> |
> | >Is the main problem locking?  If so, would it help to place the locks
> | >on a non-NFS disk?
> | 
> | Sure, assuming that all disk access to the NFS repository was from the
> | same machine, but why did you want to access the repo via NFS in the
> | first place, then?
> (sorry for taking so long to respond, exams. :)
> Central storage which eases backups, for instance?  Anyhow, it seems
> like locking isn't the problem but interoperability problems.

That's a fallacy even in this day and age.  If you don't have a
distributed backup system then you can easily still rsync file(s) to be
backed up over to the server which only does its backups from its own
local disks.

Rsync (or perhaps even better, CVSup) is very much better than any
use of NFS on all fronts.  Why would you want to use the network to
access your files all of the time instead of only using it to back them
up to?!?!?!?

Worse comes to worse you can use rsync as if it's synchronizing between
two local filesystems, but put the destination on an NFS mount so that
you don't have to install rsync on the NFS server.  The rsync protocol
is almost always faster when updating relatively unchanging file copies
than re-copying all the data over NFS.

                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]