Experience of centralized workflow with NFS-mounted storage?

[Russel Winder]

On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 16:33 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> 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.)

I don't have anything specific about problems (other than using NFS
always makes things slower), I just wanted to point out that using NFS
for $HOME and having repositories in a subdirectory of $HOME with
working trees is surely a standard situation -- it is the whole point of
NFS that this is what is going to happen.

It worries me that this situation is being treated as second class
citizen by Bazaar.  Comments such as the above appear to bear out this
discrimination against NFS based usage :-(

-- 
Russel.
====================================================
Dr Russel Winder                 Partner

Concertant LLP                   t: +44 20 7585 2200, +44 20 7193 9203
41 Buckmaster Road,              f: +44 8700 516 084
London SW11 1EN, UK.             m: +44 7770 465 077
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20081121/511e6b06/attachment.pgp