[distcc] Local vs. NFS lock files.

logic at jrlogic.dyndns.org logic at jrlogic.dyndns.org
Tue Apr 5 03:25:39 GMT 2005

> them locked.  With file creation, instead of file locking, we can look
> at the date the file was created, and choose to ignore its existence if
> it is too old.

These seems like an awefully kludged hack. All that is needed is a
semaphore that is always correct.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Pool [mailto:mbp at sourcefrog.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:18 AM
> To: Donohue, Michael
> Cc: Daniel Kegel; distcc at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [distcc] Local vs. NFS lock files.
> On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:49 -0700, Donohue, Michael wrote:
>> This is enough to convince me that NFS locking isn't hurting us at
>> PayPal, anyway.   What exactly are the issues that arise elsewhere?
> The main problem is that many people have NFS half-working, so that file
> IO works but locks don't work.  This might be because NFS locks are
> broken in your software (old Unix?) or because you forgot to run the
> lock server (easily done on linux). Because locks and IO are handled by
> different daemons and different protocols it's easy to have this and not
> notice.  (In NFS4 they're a single protocol.)  Furthermore it seems that
> if locks aren't working, the client OS will often just grant all locks.
> In general NetApp servers seem to be the one case where NFS does work
> pretty reliably... which is nice for netapp owners, but not so good for
> conservative design. :-)
> There is also this:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/distcc@lists.samba.org/msg01325.html
> If you know that NFS locks work then it's fine for you to put DISTCC_DIR
> there.  It's not a great long-term solution for coordinating between
> machines because obviously not everyone has a shared disk.
> --
> Martin
> __
> distcc mailing list            http://distcc.samba.org/
> To unsubscribe or change options:
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc

More information about the distcc mailing list