From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 17 4:43:36 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 17 04:43:31 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from axp5.physik.fu-berlin.de (axp5.physik.fu-berlin.de [160.45.34.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81C037B400 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 04:43:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de (oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de [160.45.33.83]) by axp5.physik.fu-berlin.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08300; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:43:22 +0100 (MET) Received: (from thimm@localhost) by oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA27010; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:43:21 +0100 (MET) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:43:20 +0100 From: Axel Thimm To: Dan Nelson Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rpc.lockd and true NFS locks? Message-ID: <20001217134320.A26206@oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de> Reply-To: Axel Thimm , Carsten Urbach References: <200012142245.RAA69128@cs.rpi.edu> <20001216164405.C9380@oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de> <20001216162720.A11561@dan.emsphone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20001216162720.A11561@dan.emsphone.com>; from dnelson@emsphone.com on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 04:27:20PM -0600 Sender: thimm@oberon.physik.fu-berlin.de Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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