Re: Patch for Exim 1.59 to deliver via NFS under Linux

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Philip Hazel wrote:

ph10 >Aarrgghh!! In that case, it would appear that Linux NFS is not behaving
ph10 >the same as NFS does on other systems, and is being particularly remiss
ph10 >in its emulation of a local Unix filing system.

I got news from Alan Cox that files via NFS are not required to have
accurate links according to POSIX. I suggest offering alternate POSIX
dependent versions of locking.

ph10 >Be warned that your patch is disastrous. The whole point of checking the
ph10 >number of links is to ensure that one and only one process has created
ph10 >the lock file. Without that check the whole point of the algorithm is
ph10 >lost; you are not getting any interlocking between processes.

I know. I only did the patch to allow delivery from ONE central system.
I'd rather have distributed delivery but I wont dare to do that with that
locking.
And the patch make the issue pretty clear.

ph10 >Just grabbing at straws here, but have you tried fsync() or even sync()
ph10 >before doing the stat, to see if that changes the behaviour?

No.

--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
PGP Public Key = FB 9B 31 21 04 1E 3A 33 C7 62 2F C0 CD 81 CA B5