Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!gertjan From: gertjan@atcmp.nl (Gertjan Vinkesteyn) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS Message-ID: <478@atcmpe.atcmp.nl> Date: 6 Feb 89 17:59:13 GMT References: <9018@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <7387@chinet.chi.il.us> <463@maxim.ERBE.SE> Organization: AT Computing, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Lines: 12 In article <463@maxim.ERBE.SE>, prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes: > In article , hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: > The NFS locking protocol doesn't support the SVID's mandatory locking, > but only the advisory locking. I guess it will be hard to implement > mandatory locking in a stateless environment like NFS. Mandatory locking is part of SystemV Release 3, not in Berkeley releases -- UUCP and other network )\/( ..!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!gertjan connections via mcvax )/\( gertjan@atcmp.nl (internet) This note does not necessarily represent the position of AT Computing BV