From: Boris Z. (boris@conley.com)
Date: 07/16/98-04:41:55 PM Z
Message-ID: <01BDB0C7.E1D3B350.boris@conley.com> From: "Boris Z." <boris@conley.com> Subject: RE: Atomic operations - Comments Please Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:41:55 -0700 On Thursday, July 16, 1998 11:06 AM, Peter Staubach [SMTP:Peter.Staubach@Eng.Sun.COM] wrote: > > > > It looks like this problem is similar by nature to the one that made > > you declare NLM SHARE and NLM LOCK advisory. This was fine for > > UNIX centric environment. Should we indicate in FS Attributes if the > > system supports mandatory NLM? > > > > I am not sure that I completely agree with the "UNIX centric > environment" part. What about a mixed network of NT and UNIX clients? > The server needs to be able to support both, not just one or the > other. There seem to be more and more PC servers appearing on the > market, are they going to be useful for serving anything other then > PC clients? > If PC servers use native file system's locking mechanism, they de-facto implement mandatory locking and reject file operations in locked areas. UNIX clients may get back some kind of unexpected NFS3ERR_ACCES(?) or some other errors. I think we should add to the protocol possibility of mandatory locking/sharing and define specific errors for related rejections. Generally, protocol for heterogeneous environment probably should have more client/server negotiating/capability elements than we have in the draft. b.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:45:58 AM Z CST