home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!rouge!jpd
- From: jpd@ucs.usl.edu (Dugal James P.)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.admin
- Subject: Re: SAVE ME FROM RPC.LOCKD
- Summary: 100075-09 still flawed
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.210748.25982@usl.edu>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 21:07:48 GMT
- References: <1992Dec8.011935.25011@ibx.com> <GEORGN.92Dec15234115@idcrisis.noweh.com>
- Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting)
- Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <GEORGN.92Dec15234115@idcrisis.noweh.com> georgn@noweh.com (Georg S. Nikodym) writes:
- >In article <1992Dec8.011935.25011@ibx.com> steve@ibx.com (Steve Giuliano) writes:
- > Sun told me that all my problems would go away with revision 08
- > of the lockd patch. Wrongo! Now rev 09 is out. Do I dare?
- >
- >Yes, dare. On SPARC machines the latest patches do appear to work
- >(again within what is possible with NFS).
-
- Well, I have 100075-09 installed, and I recently tried mandatory locking.
- The console of the machine running the process holding the mandatory lock
- started screaming repeatedly:
- klm_lockmgr: blocking lock denied?!
- klm_lockmgr: blocking lock denied?!
- klm_lockmgr: blocking lock denied?!
-
- until I killed the process trying to lock the file from another workstation.
- Looks like some debugging statements got left in the patch, or perhaps I
- have a bug in my test code? (Nahhhh).
-
- By the way, I switched to advisory locks and have had no problems.
- --
- -- James Dugal, N5KNX Internet: jpd@usl.edu
- Associate Director Ham packet: n5knx @k5arh (land), UO-22 (sat.)
- Computing Center US Mail: PO Box 42770 Lafayette, LA 70504
- University of Southwestern LA. Tel. 318-231-6417 U.S.A.
-