Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:28:52 +0200 From: Hanspeter Roth Bsag <roth@bsag.ch> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: Hanspeter Roth Bsag <roth@bsag.ch>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ext2fs support robust? Message-ID: <20000905152852.A4417@bs11.bsag.ch> In-Reply-To: <20000904141605.B14338@dan.emsphone.com>; from dnelson@emsphone.com on Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:16:05PM -0500 References: <20000903154433.A13312@bs11.bsag.ch> <20000903140003.D18862@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000904100032.A21607@bs11.bsag.ch> <20000904141605.B14338@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 02:16:05PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Sep 04), Hanspeter Roth Bsag said: [...] > > So what is the difference except performance? > > > > (If FreeBSD would offer good Nfs with locking I would convert the > > file systems later. But in case I will switch back to Linux I > > want to keep them as ext2fs.) > > FreeBSD offers much better NFS than Linux, and for most people the only In which respect is FreeBsd's Nfs much better than Linux'? > thing they need NFS locking for is mail delivery, and dotlocking works > just as well in that case. I'm using procmail, mutt and tkbiff. I would have to reconfigure at least three programs. How can I be sure that no other programs rely on locking? We also have Solaris clients that feel better with Nfs locking. -Hanspeter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000905152852.A4417>