Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!thurlow From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices) Keywords: McVoy, Apologist Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 16:47:56 GMT References: <1991Mar3.225844.8814@panix.uucp> Sender: news@convex.com (news access account) Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 29 Nntp-Posting-Host: dhostwo.convex.com In <1991Mar3.225844.8814@panix.uucp> zink@panix.uucp (David Zink) writes: >>>And to Unix users, NFS is not stateless. What is rpc.lockd used for? >>Whew! Where did this come from? NFS is stateless. The locking gunk is >This came from NFS, bozo. The locking protocol is separate from the NFS protocol. The only thing they share is that they both use 'filehandles'. One of the differences I see is that the locking protocol doesn't have bugs in it that I know of. NFS does, but some vendors have managed to build pretty good NFS servers, while the world is still apparently waiting on a decent lock manager. Perhaps you could describe the 'deeper' relationship between NFS and the lock manager to me? But be careful: I've worked with this code, so I won't have your naive perspective. >Next time post to comp.sun.advocacy As opposed to comp.unix.misinformed, where I read this? >And if NFS is 'good' because its 'successful' I suppose you'll insist that >MS-DOS is better than Sun-OS? It's a better tool for some things. Get a brain and come down from your ivory tower, or produce code that does all of what NFS does better. Rob T -- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX