Xref: utzoo news.software.nn:920 comp.unix.questions:25041
Path: utzoo!utstat!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!iwarp.intel.com!news
From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Newsgroups: news.software.nn,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: robust locking
Message-ID: <1990Aug28.221048.12023@iwarp.intel.com>
Date: 28 Aug 90 22:10:48 GMT
References: <2320@cirrusl.UUCP>
Sender: news@iwarp.intel.com
Reply-To: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz)
Followup-To: news.software.nn
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Lines: 24
In-Reply-To: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi)

In article <2320@cirrusl.UUCP>, dhesi%cirrusl (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
|						 But if the host name in
| the lock file is that of a different host, we refuse to supersede the
| lock.

This is incomplete.  You might as well *never* supersede a lock with
this scheme.  What if "different host" has crashed?

Isn't the proper solution something like lockf?  Or is that a BSD-ism,
or shunned by those in-the-know?  (It wasn't in the One True Unix, so
I can't make any comments on how used and useful it is.)

| I recommend this locking scheme in place of the usual pid-only lock
| file for all software, not just rn and nn.

Why?  You've jumped overboard and still haven't solved the problem of
water leaking into the boat. :-)

Just another puzzled Unix hacker and news reader,
-- 
/=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ==========\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
\=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/