On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 12:14 PM, David Montgomery wrote:

> John,
>
> Thanks for the response. So you're saying very few active IB/FB
> installations are using networked drives (via NFS, Samba, whatever)
> because
> of this potential corruption?

I'm saying no sites are using networked drives in whatever form because
there is a check in the code that prevents it. That check is easy to
remove if you can recompile the code yourself. But it can be very
dangerous because it allows two different servers on different machines
to access the file at the same time. You (and everyone else who works
on the system) would need to be very careful.

>
> We do use forced writes at present (I don't have any desire to change
> this...I don't think).

If you were to disable the network drive check forced writes would be a
must.

>
> For some metrics on how much disk activity we're currently pushing, I
> just
> set up the Win2000 performance monitor for "Disk Read Bytes/sec", "Disk
> Write Bytes/sec", and "Disc Bytes/sec". These seem like the best
> metrics
> available for this purpose. Once I have some idea of how much data
> we're
> talking about, I'll let you know.

Those numbers should provide rough insight into how much network
bandwidth you would need and if, from a theoretical standpoint, gigabit
ethernet would be sufficient.

-John