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