From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 1 08:52:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA05286 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA05281 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA21748; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:48:14 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:48:14 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199707011548.JAA21748@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Robert Withrow Cc: Chuck Robey , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS V3 is it stable? In-Reply-To: <199707010205.WAA28727@spooky.rwwa.com> References: <199707010205.WAA28727@spooky.rwwa.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > chuckr@glue.umd.edu said: > :- Samy, are you using NFS to mount the mail sppol directories? Since > :- nfs locking isn't in a very good condition, it's almost guaranteed to > :- fail. The mail directories are accessed bot for mail delivery and mail > :- pickup, and reliable locking is a top requirement. > > But... I am doing this without *any* problems with FBSD 2.1.[567], where the > mail spools are served by a Solaris system. I was going to upgrade > a bunch of systems to 2.2-release, but now I'm worried. IMO, This *must* > be made to work at least as well as it does in 2.1.[567]. You're simply lucky in this case. You may/may not have problems, because I have *no* idea why it works the way it's configured now. There is no locking in older versions of FreeBSD, and as been pointed out in the past NFS locking is broken in almost every version of Unix out there, including most releases SUN has made. Nate