[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: lockd does not work as expected
    On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Steven N. Hirsch wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Mike Harrelson wrote:
    > > On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Steven N. Hirsch wrote:
    > > > > Thanks a lot. I'll try to replace the flock system
    > > > > call by any of the others. Actually flock worked
    > > > > perfectly as long as I just use solaris nodes. So
    > > > > the linux system is not "consistent with existing
    > > > > practice on other UNIX's".
    > > >
    > > > Yes, the semantics are not consistant across platforms. AIX and Digital
    > > > Unix 4.x also seem to support flock() over NFS. Which Unices _don't_
    > > > support it (just for curiousity)?
    > >
    > > Digital Unix, as of 4.0D, did not support NFS locking via flock(). It was
    > > a local lock only.
    > Odd. The last time I looked into this, it acted as if it was locking over
    > NFS. I ran one little Perl program on the Alpha, and a second on an AIX
    > NFS client machine. It certainly acted as if they were respecting each
    > other's flock(). And, yes, I checked the Perl sources. It's definitely
    > using flock().

    I'd check again using strace or such. It definitely doesn't work here over
    NFS, just locally. We tested programs (written in C) in a mixed environment
    of Solaris and DU boxes. fcntl() locks were recognized by other machines,
    flock() locks were not. There was, however, a newsgroup posting by a DEC
    employee some months back stating that they may extend flock() to work over
    NFS in 4.0E. I haven't verified if they did or not. I hope not.

    -- mikeh

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.299 / U:2.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site