tdd@convex.cl.msu.edu (Thomas D. Davis) (11/07/90)
In article <2575@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes: >Yes, yes. I know, Geoff. You just follow the lead of the boys on the west >coast on these issues. Their brilliant actions brought the wonderful >compatibility between PC-NFS and the SunOS 4.1 lock daemon, right? I plead ignorance. What exactly is the problem with PC-NFS and the SunOS 4.1 lock daemon? -- Tom Davis | The above statement shall be construed, Network Software Services | interpreted, and governed by me alone. Michigan State University | EMail: tdd@convex.cl.msu.edu
sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.163408.23725@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> tdd@convex.cl.msu.edu (Thomas D. Davis) writes: >In article <2575@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes: >>Yes, yes. I know, Geoff. You just follow the lead of the boys on the west >>coast on these issues. Their brilliant actions brought the wonderful >>compatibility between PC-NFS and the SunOS 4.1 lock daemon, right? > >I plead ignorance. What exactly is the problem with PC-NFS and the SunOS 4.1 >lock daemon? >-- If you mounted a directory with the /SH option, it did not in fact share (use MS-DOS 3.1 locking) on the disk. The requests by PC-NFS to lock were ignored by the Sun host. The fix we used was to re-install the SunOS 4.0.3 rpc.lockd. This fixed that problem, although probably not the Sun-approved way of fixing it. It should be noted that many NFS implementations get the lockd wrong. I guess this is not too surprising since Sun can't seem to get it consistantly right, either. Some NFS implementations even include their own locking daemon that does not communicate with the host machine so it doesn't know the file is locked. Distributed computing, indeed! STAN -- Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine