On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 01:32:33PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote: > There are some disadvantages with this proposal: ...
You're right: there are resource consumption costs. However, when measured against lost or damaged mail issues, these are probably worth incurring. > > The bad side of this is that it requires some very specific > > documentation, and it's an extra admin headache for people using > > mail on NFS. The good aspects are: (1) only affects people stuck > > with mail on NFS, and (2) people on those systems wouldn't lose mail > > to NFS "features". > > It's a cleaner solution to simply fix the locking method. Miquel told > me that he will implement a NFS safe way of locking in liblockfile > (next week) and I proposed a policy change to make the problem clearer > (#43651, don't ask me, why only Joey Hess seconds this now). If he can properly deal with nfs systems which don't support fcntl locking, that would be really nice. However, I don't see that 43651 addresses that case. -- Raul
