Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:43:20 +0100 From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm+freebsd-hackers@physik.fu-berlin.de> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rpc.lockd and true NFS locks? Message-ID: <20001217134320.A26206@oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <20001216162720.A11561@dan.emsphone.com>; from dnelson@emsphone.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 04:27:20PM -0600 References: <Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de> <200012142245.RAA69128@cs.rpi.edu> <20001216164405.C9380@oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de> <20001216162720.A11561@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 04:27:20PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Dec 16), Axel Thimm said: > > Wouldn't that mean, that you might cause data corruption if, say, I was to > > read my mail from a FreeBSD box over an NFS mounted spool directory > > (running under OSF1 in our case), and I decided to write back the mbox to > > the spool dir the same moment new mail is delivered? > That's why dotlocking is recommended for locking mail spools. Both procmail > and mutt will dotlock your mail file while it's being accessed. This was just a test case above. Not all programs are kind enough to allow control of their locking strategy. What about samba accessing NFS volumes in a transparent net or pure sendmail w/o procmail? Especially if your mail server is already at heavy load serving O(1000) users, forcing each incomming mail to be passed to procmail would must certainly increase the load too much. (Maybe sendmail and samba can also be compiled with dotlocking methods, these are also just examples). Also not all our users want to switch to mutt, we have to support a wide range of mail readers. Axel. -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001217134320.A26206>