Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:5263 comp.protocols.nfs:2187 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.protocols.nfs Subject: Re: Symlink locking considered useless over NFS Message-ID: <28123DD5.1716@tct.com> Date: 22 Apr 91 01:35:16 GMT References: <3064@cirrusl.UUCP> <280EE8A1.30D@tct.com> <3074@cirrusl.UUCP> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 28 According to Rahul Dhesi : >In <280EE8A1.30D@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>This "solution" is nothing of the kind. >>NFS can report failure on a symlink creation (or on directory >>creation) even if the operation succeeds. > >How about calling it "the closest thing to a solution that has yet been >seen on Usenet"? I would agree with that assessment, as long as it were followed by the disclaimer, "but then, 'almost solved' means 'not solved.'" If I had a Sun machine, I'd avoid NFS-mounted mailboxes like the plague. (I'd shun cliches, too; but that's another story.) >I seem to remember an email message from you to which I sent a brief >reply of thanks; perhaps my reply failed somewhere. (Hmmm....maybe >your mail software uses symlinks for locking, and the lock failed, so >you never got my reply :-) Well, I apologize if I ruffled any feathers. What really sets me off is when a vendor creates a problem for which no reasonable workaround exists, and then lets it endure for a long time. Sun's motto should be: "Our Lockd Matches Our NFS Protocol: They're Both Broken". -- Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service: When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm] Chip Salzenberg ,