| 1 |
On Sat, November 12, 2011 2:11 pm, YoYo Siska wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' |
| 4 |
>> server share the distfiles dir via NFS? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing |
| 7 |
>> vs |
| 8 |
>> HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a |
| 9 |
>> trusted |
| 10 |
>> network by definition. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only |
| 13 |
> problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a |
| 14 |
> server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another |
| 15 |
> network... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
NFS-shares can work, but these need to be umounted before network goes. |
| 18 |
If server goes, problems can occur there as well. |
| 19 |
But that is true with any server/client filesharing. (CIFS/Samba, for |
| 20 |
instance) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however |
| 23 |
> for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save |
| 24 |
> tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many |
| 25 |
> computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking |
| 26 |
> etc works correctly... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Locking works correctly, have had 5 machines share the same NFS-shared |
| 29 |
distfiles and all downloading the source-files. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own |
| 32 |
> distfiles directories ;) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Big plus, for me :) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Joost |
Archives