Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > I assume you're referring to SFTP's (and thus sshfs's) lack of support > for locking. While annoying, IMO it's no worse than the locking issues > I've run into with NFSv3 and Samba3, and I vaguely remember AFS has > "advisory" locks (meaning it doesn't stop you). > > Are there other places where SFTP doesn't comply with SUS 2008?
That's the right question to ask, and my quick Web search didn't locate a good attempt at an answer. As you note, locking issues are common to network-based file systems (in which regard, NFSv4 is an improvement, as I recall). The SSHFS FAQ indicates that rename operations are not implemented correctly, though there's a partially satisfactory work-around: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/fuse/?title=SshfsFaq whereby the rename() is not atomic, but the link to an existing file/directory is removed. The rename(3posix) manual page reads, in part: "If the link named by the new argument exists, it shall be removed and old renamed to new. In this case, a link named new shall remain visible to other processes throughout the renaming operation and refer either to the file referred to by new or old before the operation began." I think that's what the FAQ is referring to. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
