Experience of centralized workflow with NFS-mounted storage?

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ben Finney wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
> 
>> 1) We only use OS locks for *working trees*. So if you have a
>> repository + branches on NFS everything should work fine. What tends
>> to break is when your home directory is an NFS directory, because we
>> use an OS lock on one of the files there (.bzr/checkout/dirstate).
> 
> What hope is there for Bazaar users who are already in the “home
> directory (and thus working trees) on NFS” use case, then? Surely
> that's one of the most common uses of NFS.
> 

If your NFS install supports OS locks, things should still work just fine.

Alternatively, you can work in /tmp and commit to the repository in $HOME.

I will say that having your working trees on NFS is often a bad deal
anyway. When I tested that sort of thing in the past, it meant much
longer compile times, etc. So having your repo on NFS and your WT on
local disk is a big win for more than just bzr.


Also, we *would* like to get rid of the need for an OS lock, it was
meant to allow an optimization that we never got to. It just hasn't been
a high priority versus the other things we've worked on. But if someone
is on NFS and being bitten by not having OS locks, we could certainly
help them work up a patch for a new WT format that doesn't require an OS
lock. (WT3 doesn't require OS locks, but is generally a lot slower than
WT4.)

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkl5cIACgkQJdeBCYSNAAM8AQCcD2eVqtUNeQf8htSPgFLDgVR0
9zoAn2vbCFbQgSjg6nY18wWDSYTLSmQM
=WFWJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----