From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 14 16:32:22 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 14 16:32:17 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rpi.edu (mumble.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.8.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C485737B6A0; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.rpi.edu (bill.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.2.2]) by cs.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA72567; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:31:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012150031.TAA72567@cs.rpi.edu> To: Matt Dillon Cc: "David E. Cross" , Alfred Perlstein , Axel Thimm , Carsten Urbach , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, crossd@cs.rpi.edu Subject: Re: rpc.lockd and true NFS locks? In-Reply-To: Message from Matt Dillon of "Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:18:39 PST." <200012150018.eBF0Id999356@earth.backplane.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:31:53 -0500 From: "David E. Cross" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Going with the lockd code on builder is great with me. The last I had looked it had some of the same issues as the lockd developed here (no handling of grace periods, etc.), so on a featureset we are even. The rpics lockd has the advantage of being known by some of us to a much greater extent than the BSDI code. _However_ the BSDI code has undergone much more testing and design work than the rpics one. Given this I think the clear choice is with the BSDI code. >sigh< now, if I wasn't always getting buried with stuff. -- David Cross | email: crossd@cs.rpi.edu Lab Director | Rm: 308 Lally Hall Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860 Department of Computer Science | Fax: 518.276.4033 I speak only for myself. | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message