From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: petter.knutsen@cgi.no Subject: Re: File lock with multiple clients Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:25:07 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1ESu5L-0006yx-SR for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:25:15 -0700 Received: from mail09.webhuset.no ([81.27.32.116] helo=mx.webhuset.no) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1ESu5K-0007a8-1Z for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:25:15 -0700 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, neilb@suse.de Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: > Check the man page: "man flock": >=20 > Use fcntl or lockf (which is wrapper for fcntl) if you want to lock > over NFS. As Trond said, flock() seems to work by emulating fcntl(), but regardless of whether I'm using fcntl() directly or flock() with emulation, should my scenario with two clients work, where one client locks and the other client honouring the lock? As I said, it works between processes on the same client, but not between processes on different clients. I would appreciate if someone could tell me if this is possible or not, so I can either abandon NFS and look for alternatives or, if it should work, go back and look for flaws in my setup. :-) -- Petter= ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs