Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:50:28 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS Locking Issue Message-ID: <44A91294.3080701@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20060703122210.GA46625@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <20060703122210.GA46625@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michel Talon wrote: [ ...a long email snipped... ] > My only conclusion is that these NFS stories are very > tricky. The only moment everything worked fine was when we were running > Solaris on the server. I can't speak to the earlier part about NFS with Linux, but at least I very much agree with your conclusion: Solaris makes one of the best NFS servers available, over a broad range of use cases. However, I also wish to note that if you want to use NFS and you need remote locking to work, your best hope is when the software you use is willing to use explicit lockfiles rather than depending on rpc.lockd to provide remote flock()/lockf()-style locking. There are plenty of software out there which includes locking tests (sendmail does, UWash IMAP does, Perl does, etc), and my observation has been that actually using NFS-based remote locking under anything beyond trivial load tends to make rpc.lockd terminate within seconds (maybe with a core dump, if you get lucky), or end up with processes getting stuck forever waiting on locks that don't ever return because they've been lost somewhere in limbo. YMMV. :-) -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44A91294.3080701>