Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 17:10:21 -0800 (PST) From: bsder@mail.allcaps.org To: Chris BeHanna <chris@pennasoft.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS Locking Problems (Was: Re: I'm impressed, but ...) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212081644480.15761-100000@mail.allcaps.org> In-Reply-To: <200212081859.30520.chris@pennasoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Chris BeHanna wrote: > > Locking is always a problem over NFS :-/ It's one of the reasons I'm using > > maildirs instead of normal happy mboxes. NFS locking is a problem on 4.X. NFS locks work on -current and have for about a year. FreeBSD -current NFS locks work with both FreeBSD and Solaris clients and servers. FreeBSD -current NFS locks are known to fail with Linux and the problem seems to be on the Linux side (At least that's what I will maintain until someone proves otherwise ;) ) The first bug report on the rpc.lockd rewrite was someone using NFS locking on mboxes (FreeBSD client and Solaris server). Consequently, we know that even mbox locking works in at least one situation. > To be fair, I only recently read (here) that rpc.lockd has to > run on the client side as well as on the server side, and I have > not yet repeated my tests. That's on my List of Things to Do RSN. In order to honor NFS locks, *all* NFS machines must run rpc.lockd or its equivalent. NFS file locking is not part of the NFS protocol, it has its own protocol for the purpose which uses RPC. FreeBSD NFS locking on -current also seems to require rpc.statd on both NFS clients and servers as well. This is the daemon which recovers locks when an NFS server crashes. I need to look at the standard and see if this is really required or could be made optional. -a To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0212081644480.15761-100000>