[gentoo-user] Re: gcc-6.4.0-r1::gentoo failed (compile phase)
On 2018-03-28 17:40, Peter Humphrey wrote: > I think NFS may be simpler to operate, but that may be because I'm > more familiar with it. You just need something like this in the Atom's > /etc/ exports: /usr/portage > 192.168.1.5(rw,no_subtree_check,anonuid=250,anongid=250,no_wdelay) NBD (Network Block Device) may be an alternative to NFS in some situations. I now use it for /var/tmp/portage on my storage-poor machine. -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
[gentoo-user] Re: gcc-6.4.0-r1::gentoo failed (compile phase)
On 2018-03-28 15:08, Grant Taylor wrote: > Doesn't NBD (iSCSI and ATA over Ethernet) show up more like SAN > compared to NFS which is NAS? Well, that's too many 3-letter acronyms for me ;-) It is lower level, yes. All the filesystem code is on the client; the server only handles requests of the form "here's the new contents of block 1234, and be sure to tell me when it's safely on disk". -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
[gentoo-user] Re: gcc-6.4.0-r1::gentoo failed (compile phase)
On 2018-03-28 16:09, Grant Taylor wrote: > The point being, NBD / AoE / iSCSI are SAN technologies and not > conducive for multiple clients to access at the same time (without a > clustered file system). Unlike NFS which is safe for multiple clients > to access at the same time. So, having multiple distributed build > machines sort of necessitates NFS (or a clustered file system). That's quite true. As I wrote, in my case the build is not distributed, just the storage; and the server has enough storage for me to dedicate another part of it to serve as a remote device for another client, should it be needed. -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc-6.4.0-r1::gentoo failed (compile phase)
On 03/28/2018 02:51 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: NBD (Network Block Device) may be an alternative to NFS in some situations. Doesn't NBD (iSCSI and ATA over Ethernet) show up more like SAN compared to NFS which is NAS? -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc-6.4.0-r1::gentoo failed (compile phase)
On 03/28/2018 03:53 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: Well, that's too many 3-letter acronyms for me It is lower level, yes. All the filesystem code is on the client; the server only handles requests of the form "here's the new contents of block 1234, and be sure to tell me when it's safely on disk". Fair enough. The point being, NBD / AoE / iSCSI are SAN technologies and not conducive for multiple clients to access at the same time (without a clustered file system). Unlike NFS which is safe for multiple clients to access at the same time. So, having multiple distributed build machines sort of necessitates NFS (or a clustered file system). -- Grant. . . . unix || die
