From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 25 7:58:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.30.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B360B37B4EC for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 07:58:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de) Received: (from kuku@localhost) by gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA57232 for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:58:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kuku) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:58:50 +0100 (CET) From: Christoph Kukulies Message-Id: <200102251558.QAA57232@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: NFS behaviour Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG NFS experts out there, I have a question about synchronisation: Imagine two hosts A (NFS server), host B (NFS client). Process on A modifies a file. When does process on B get notification about the change? Does it depend on the time set on the different hosts? Is it a caching issue or what? With two Linux systems we are seeing all sorts of strange effects with such a setup. Just curious if FreeBSD behaves better here. Well, I could try it out, but if it is a general problem anyway with NFS I'd prefer to discuss it theoretically :-) -- Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message