Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!emory!ra!Isis.MsState.Edu!it1 From: it1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Tim Tsai) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Named Pipes across NFS? Message-ID: Date: 25 Apr 91 09:40:50 GMT References: <4021@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <1991Apr24.233121.3704@Think.COM> Sender: usenet@ra.MsState.Edu Distribution: comp Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: isis.msstate.edu barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: [lines deleted] >pipes are implemented entirely within the local kernel (didn't Jonathan >Kamens just answer this question a day or two ago?). Yes he did.. I was the one that asked the question.. >Why does it need to be a named pipe? If the server and clients can be on >different machines, why not just use a regular file? Named pipes are >simply optimizations that exist for processes on the same host. In my case, I have my .plan set up as a named pipe and a daemon that searches the process table for the finger process when awaken. This will only catch fingerers from the local host, which was fine, but if a NFS-mounted station tries to read my .plan, it blocks, and causes erratic behavior with the daemon until .plan is read from the original host. >-- >Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. >barmar@think.com >{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar -- Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.