> them locked. With file creation, instead of file locking, we can look > at the date the file was created, and choose to ignore its existence if > it is too old.
These seems like an awefully kludged hack. All that is needed is a semaphore that is always correct. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Pool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:18 AM > To: Donohue, Michael > Cc: Daniel Kegel; distcc@lists.samba.org > Subject: Re: [distcc] Local vs. NFS lock files. > > On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:49 -0700, Donohue, Michael wrote: > >> This is enough to convince me that NFS locking isn't hurting us at >> PayPal, anyway. What exactly are the issues that arise elsewhere? > > The main problem is that many people have NFS half-working, so that file > IO works but locks don't work. This might be because NFS locks are > broken in your software (old Unix?) or because you forgot to run the > lock server (easily done on linux). Because locks and IO are handled by > different daemons and different protocols it's easy to have this and not > notice. (In NFS4 they're a single protocol.) Furthermore it seems that > if locks aren't working, the client OS will often just grant all locks. > > In general NetApp servers seem to be the one case where NFS does work > pretty reliably... which is nice for netapp owners, but not so good for > conservative design. :-) > > There is also this: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/distcc@lists.samba.org/msg01325.html > > If you know that NFS locks work then it's fine for you to put DISTCC_DIR > there. It's not a great long-term solution for coordinating between > machines because obviously not everyone has a shared disk. > > -- > Martin > > __ > distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ > To unsubscribe or change options: > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc > __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc