From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 30 20:34:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA04580 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA04575 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA24404; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:32:41 -0700 (PDT) To: Robert Withrow cc: Chuck Robey , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS V3 is it stable? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:05:49 EDT." <199707010205.WAA28727@spooky.rwwa.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:32:41 -0700 Message-ID: <24401.867727961@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > But... I am doing this without *any* problems with FBSD 2.1.[567], where the > mail spools are served by a Solaris system. I was going to upgrade > a bunch of systems to 2.2-release, but now I'm worried. IMO, This *must* > be made to work at least as well as it does in 2.1.[567]. It never worked at all, not in 2.1.[67] or now, so your degree of risk is essentially the same. We've been waiting forever for someone to take an active enough interest in this to implement an NFS locking daemon. We're still waiting. ;) Jordan P.S. Terry sent me the skeleton of something way back when I was actually masochistically considering this myself, but I came to my senses and backed away in time. :)