Re: CVS, NFS Filesystem, and failover

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <address@hidden>, Andrew McGhee wrote:
>I've heard it mentioned on this newsgroup that mixing NFS with CVS is a bad
>idea.
>
>Can anyone elaborate more one this?

Specifically, it is a bad idea for clients to access an NFS-mounted
CVS repository, rather than using a CVS-level protocol.  It's a nearly
equally bad idea for the server to access its repository through NFS.

>The goal here is to have;
>1. A backup CVS server, in case the first one fails.

Must there really be this much availability in a CVS server? It's not
like a CVS repository serves thousands upon thousands of developers.
Moreover, there is already a kind of distributed availability built into
CVS in the sense that you have your working copy; development work is
not entirely impaired if CVS repository access is disrupted.

If you have a read-only CVS server for mass public access, that's
something else.