From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Question re. git remote repository Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:49:13 -0800 Message-ID: <20130117234912.GA14936@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <201301161749.r0GHnGV6007806@smtpb02.one-mail.on.ca> <20130116220615.48c159546bccfa5b9cd9028e@domain007.com> <20130116182156.GB4426@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130116233744.7d0775eaec98ce154a9de180@domain007.com> <0630A778-9AC8-4023-889C-4FC58ABAB683@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stephen Smith , Konstantin Khomoutov , "git@vger.kernel.org" , "Lang, David" To: David Lang X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 18 00:49:40 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TvzDG-0001YY-0k for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:49:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753587Ab3AQXtR (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:49:17 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:36718 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753176Ab3AQXtR (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:49:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 25598 invoked by uid 107); 17 Jan 2013 23:50:34 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (207.86.76.198) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:50:34 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:49:13 -0800 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:00:41PM -0800, David Lang wrote: > >>This one [1] for instance. I also recall seing people having other > >>"mystical" problems with setups like this so I somehow developed an idea > >>than having a repository on a networked drive is asking for troubles. > >>Of course, if there are happy users of such setups, I would be glad to > >>hear as my precautions might well be unfounded for the recent versions > >>of Git. > >> > >>1. http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=130 > > > >A group I was with used a master repository on a windows share for quite some time without a database corruption being seen. -- > > I think the risk is that if you have multiple people doing actions on > the shared filesystem you can run into trouble. > > As long as only one copy of git is ever running against the > repository, I don't see any reason for there to be a problem. That should not be an issue. Git on a server has to deal with multiple independent receive-pack's running to accept several simultaneous pushes. They coordinate through the use of file locks. Having multiple machines pushing over a shared filesystem should work the same, as long as the filesystem support atomic creation of files with O_EXCL. There may be other subtle issues lurking (e.g., the Windows issue that Konstantin mentioned), but as far as I know, it _should_ work in general. -Peff