Lock problem

[Pietro]

Thanks again Urban :)

I investigated lock using NFS and found that its lock system is 
implemented using rpc.lockd and rpc.statd, but is only ADVISORY lock 
system, that is, any application can write anyway avoiding the lock 
system (Oh my God, what a Crap!!!)  and will be discarded as alternative 
:(.

Smbfs is the only option at this time ( or using M$ lan manager for DOS 
:P ).

Pietro

Urban Widmark wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Pietro wrote:
>
>>Thanks Urban, your help has been very usefull. I see much more clear now.
>>Unfortunately, i can't use the experimental patch because the system is 
>>in production and i can't test it with the patch. :(
>>
>...
>
>>May be i can use nfs with nfslock to do the trick.
>>
>
>That is understandable. NFS could certainly be worth testing.
>
>
>>Of course, using locks with smbfs is the cleanest way to work and i want 
>>the patch to test it in other applications.
>>
>
>The patches for smbfs are (finally) available at:
>	http://www.hojdpunkten.ac.se/054/samba/index.html
>
>You want the smbfs-2.4.17-2.5.patch.gz patch and apply that to a 2.4.17
>kernel.
>
>The features include:
>	Large File Support (>2G files)
>	Unicode Support
>	Support for fcntl locking and oplocks
>
>The first 2 require changes to smbmount to become "active". But for
>testing the locking you don't need to make any changes to smbmount.
>
>
>Sorry for the delay in responding with the link. I found some problems
>with the code the locking code depends on, and it seemed pointless giving
>you a patch that I knew would crash your machine.
>
>The locking code has a few known problems still, so don't expect it to 
>work (it may, but assume that it will fail :)
>
>/Urban
>
>