Richard Pfeiffer writes:
>
> 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;
Mostly correct -- it's opertions that modify the RCS files i
Richard Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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;
A 'cvs add' should not be a huge problem a
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
revi
Richard Pfeiffer writes:
>
> Would anyone happen to know of any test
> comparison cases (pserver connection vs actual
> mount) regarding this or have any opinions on the
> subject?
Check the archives -- I'm sure there have been reports in the past of
pserver being faster than NFS. (And that only
Richard Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> ever
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
co
