Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:17:46 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ok, that's it, enough is enough! (rpc.lockd) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9911230916351.15756-100000@semuta.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <199911231701.KAA13906@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : Ok... I have *had* it with the meta, but not really, lockd. Are there any > : kernel issues with correctly implimenting rpc.lockd? How can I take a > : filehandle and map it into a filename, with path, so I may open it and lock > : it on the server? Are there any protocol specs? I downloaded the RFC for > : version 4 nlm (which we do not supoprt at *all*), but it only lists diffs to > : the version 3 spec, which I cannot find, and the source is not a whole lot > : of help on this issue. > > One area that Solbourne had lots and lots of problems with years ago > when it tried to implenent rpc.lockd was that Sun, at the time, has 5! > incompatible versions that had to be interoperated with. Don't know > if things have changed in the ensuing years or not... Not really, no. Insofar as I know, the only distributed open source lock manager that might ever have a chance of being usable is the one the GFS guys are working on now, and naturally that will be tied to GFS, etc... 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9911230916351.15756-100000>