Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:02:02 +0200 From: Robert Joosten <robert@ml.erje.net> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.1 and NFS Message-ID: <20060922180202.GB918@iphouse.com> In-Reply-To: <6180D198-A44B-46D0-8A0B-FC5D3ACA115C@mac.com> References: <C87B42D9-AF83-4DFC-9E13-53FCD874A444@obmail.net> <20060921182252.GA24321@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060921214316.GD673@iphouse.com> <6180D198-A44B-46D0-8A0B-FC5D3ACA115C@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > >Hmmm, is there a way to run pxe-boxes without rpc.lockd and then still > >able to run adduser and so on ? > Safely? No. But then, flock() doesn't work via NFS even if > rpc.lockd is running, so you aren't any worse off. flock() .. hmm yeah, I discoverd trouble with sendmail as well, it rings my bell. At least I know where to look for digging in the code finding clues about why. You say flock() doesn't work with rpc.lockd running. I observed running a pxe client running fbsd 5.[45] being served by nfs-box running 5 (and 4 nowadays because of asr0 trouble due to geom) having disabled rpc.lockd the box doens't let me run adduser, but with rpc.lockd enabled it's fine with 'em. Is that strange or am I missing (some) insight about this matter ? > However, I believe that some systems have actually re-implemented the > BSD flock() call in terms of calling the POSIX lockf(), which would > attempt to use rpc.lockd and thus have some chance of working over > NFS. I believe this was done in Linux by Andy Walker and for MacOS X > by Justin Walker (odd naming coincidence, there), IIRC; perhaps some > of these changes have made their way back to the other BSDs. Interesting observation. Thx for your reply ! Regards, Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060922180202.GB918>