Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 22 May 2001 14:42:42 -0700
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To:        Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
Cc:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.demon.nl>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: -R for make update ?
Message-ID:  <20010522144242.A29988@xor.obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <15114.51414.50651.695529@nomad.yogotech.com>; from nate@yogotech.com on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:15:18PM -0600
References:  <20010521194828.A789@freebie.demon.nl> <3B0A46CF.9D0CB622@mindspring.com> <20010522125919.D27648@xor.obsecurity.org> <15114.51414.50651.695529@nomad.yogotech.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:15:18PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > > Is there any specific reason why one needs to be able to
> > > > write a lock to the CVS repo when running 'make update'
> > > > to get a freshly checked out source?
> > >=20
> > > Yeah: you aren't running your CVS server in "pserver"
> > > mode, and so are trying to do a lock, either in your
> > > local copy, or over NFS.
> > >=20
> > > If you run your repository in pserver mode, the CVS server
> > > will be connected to over the network, instead of attacking
> > > your CVS repo directly, and you won't have the problem you
> > > are seeing, since the cvs server will be able to get the
> > > lock, no problem.
> >=20
> > It will also be freakishly slow, and use massive amounts of temp
> > space.
>=20
> No slower than cvs using rsh/ssh, although it does tend to create alot
> of inodes in /tmp.  (It doesn't create alot of temp space, other than
> what is used to create the directories...)

Yes, using rsh/ssh is also slow, but we were talking about *local*
access, which has none of those drawbacks.  -R makes cvs operations go
quite a bit faster, and AFAIK is perfectly safe if you're using a
private repo for which you know there will be no contention.

Kris

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7Ct1RWry0BWjoQKURAhROAKCjI3HryT3y26HnnYC7pq8/u+cQVgCeOhiG
llbLV+dd4y9RxZo2cS04xaE=
=6wzM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010522144242.A29988>