Re: speed: pserver vs mount of repository

[Richard Pfeiffer]

Is it just the ADD/COMMIT over an NFS that would
cause the corruption, and, presuming an as-of-yet
uncorrupted repository, doing a CHECK-OUT over an
NFS mounted repository would NOT cause
corruption;
or 
would/could a CHECK-OUT over an as-of-yet
uncorrupted NFS mounted repository also cause a
revision to become corrupt?

Note:  I suggested to the users we lose the NFS
mount.  I just want to answer all their (and
my)questions.
I originally noticed mention of this NFS issue in
the CVS Manual, but since then have not been able
to relocate it.  Is it in the Repository chapter
or elsewhere?  Perhaps someone has the exact
link?

Thanks for all the help/advise.  It's much
appreciated!
-R



--- "Mark D. Baushke" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Richard Pfeiffer <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I know it's not advised to NFS mount the cvs
> > repository to the machine on which the cvs
> binary
> > resides.  However, we have a user group that
> is
> > convinced we have to do so for speed reasons.
> 
> > (Doing updates of a massive repository
> approx.
> > every 25 minutes)
> > Would anyone happen to know of any test
> > comparison cases (pserver connection vs
> actual
> > mount) regarding this or have any opinions on
> the
> > subject?
> 
> The correct question is this:
> 
>   "Is it ever acceptable that a 'cvs commit'
> may corrupt the repository
>   without any notification of any problems
> whatsoever until much time
>   has passed and there is a need to checkout an
> old version of the
>   repository that is found to be corrupted due
> to earlier NFS usage?"
> 
> If the answer is: 
> 
>   "We do not care about old versions or if they
> might happen to be
>   corrupt.", then by all means feel free to use
> NFS to do the checkouts.
> 
> If the answer is: 
> 
>   "Correctness is more important than speed."
> 
> then just say no to using the NFS approach.
> 
> By the way, you may find that having a high
> bandwidth connection between
> your cvs pserver machine and the datastore for
> the repository (hopefully it
> is in some kind of UFS filesystem rather than
> NFS) will benefit from using
> the -zN (where N is one of 1,2,3,...,9)
> compression. Or, if you are using
> 'CVS_RSH=ssh' then you have compression and
> security of the packets.
> 
> I would suggest that the only test comparisons
> you should consider are
> those you setup and run for yourself on your
> own hardware and networking
> equipment as there are a great many factors
> that can reduce throughput.
> 
>       -- Mark


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com