On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Wayne Davison wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Benjamin R. Haskell <zsh@benizi.com> wrote:
>       if the SF git server were to go down, how is it any different 
>       than the SF CVS server going down?
> 
> 
> There are multiple git servers, all of which share the load for 
> serving every git request, no matter the project.  CVS doesn't play 
> well with shared storage,

For anyone else interested in specifics, googling CVS NFS comes up with 
this thread[1], but more interesting was Linus's explanation of how git 
avoids NFS problems[2].  (NFS being the natural search term when 
"doesn't play well" and "shared storage" are mentioned.)


> so there is just one cvs server for a particular project that is 
> active at any one time.  This means that there are outages for 
> maintenance, outages for fail-overs, etc., more-so than there'd be 
> with git.

Thanks for the explanation.  Makes sense now.

-- 
Best,
Ben

[1] CVS and NFS - ~4.5 years old - http://mongers.org/cvs#cvs_nfs
[2] what's the current wisdom on git over NFS/CIFS? - 2009-07-02 -
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/122670