From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 1 13:29:02 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AEAD16A439 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:29:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03DC43D45 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 13:29:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7837610B; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:28:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9AC60FE; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:28:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A409433D44; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:28:53 +0200 (CEST) To: Marcel Moolenaar References: <560747f4f3d58887485e1a2c0c25ac26@xcllnt.net> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:28:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <560747f4f3d58887485e1a2c0c25ac26@xcllnt.net> (Marcel Moolenaar's message of "Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:00:20 -0700") Message-ID: <86ll3lrdka.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Tests: ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -5.3/5.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on tim.des.no Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.0-BETA1: rpc.lockd broken for NFS server only configuration X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:29:02 -0000 Marcel Moolenaar writes: > This tells me that NFS locking does not work if rpc.lockd is not > running on the server. Correct. > I could of course add nfsclient to my kernel configuration file, but > that annihilates the effort to split the server functionality from > the client functionality, so that's no solution. No. A server needs both nfsserver and nfsclient, but a client needs only nfsclient. > In short: NFS locking is broken again Not at all. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no