Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:52:54 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: lederer@bonn-online.com (Sebastian Lederer) Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS locking, was: Re: NFS V3 is it stable? Message-ID: <199707022052.NAA08047@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <33BABD1C.41C67EA6@bonn-online.com> from "Sebastian Lederer" at Jul 2, 97 10:42:04 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> But then the kernel on the nfs client would need to act as an rpc > server, since the replies from the server's lockd are sent > explicitly to the client's nlockmgr rpc service as seperate rpc calls. > The rpc.lockd skeleton from Andrew Gordon does the replies this way, > I've already checked that. > You can simply start the rpc.lockd and use the "test" program to make > a fake locking rpc to localhost, and the reply will not go to the > test program, but to the lockd itself. > Another problem would be that the nlockmgr service port is dynamically > allocated, unlike the nfs service port. You could probably specify the > nlockmgr port as a mount option, but what if the server reboots and the > port number changes? The kernel would have to do portmapper lookups? How do you think NFS server to NFS client responses operate? The NFS client has to do the same types of things. > Solaris would surely be preferable, but the current price list shows > Solaris 2.5.1 for x86 as about 5000 DM (about 2700 US-$). > As soon as I see any special offer there I will probably get it. I believe there is a student offer, if you know a student. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707022052.NAA08047>