Subject: Re: Samba and Netatalk
From: Danny Sauer (dsauer@teleologic.net)
Date: Thu Mar 08 2001 - 12:54:13 EST
Chris wrote regarding 'Re: Samba and Netatalk' on Thu, Mar 08 at 11:31:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Matthew Keller wrote:
> > Frank Joerdens wrote:
> > > Please explain. I've kinda regretted using Netatalk/Samba because of
> > > this and troubles with the mswindwos/codepage options. If NT/2000 has
> > > trouble with locking too, that would be a relief!
> >
> > Albeit better than the NON-EXISTANCE of shared locking between
> > Samba/Netatalk (although the new Samba has a locking API, so
> > theoretically any program can use its locking API to "stay safe" with
> > Samba), NT/2k still do not lock well between the two platforms. There is
> > no way to lock parts of a file, and write-locks don't exist, so both
> > plats can simultaneously write to the same file and possibly corrupt it
> > horribly.
>
> cool. then do i understand correctly that we could patch netatalk to use
> samba's locking API thus preventing this file corruption?
>
> i'd like to lean more about this. where would i look to lean more about
> this?
>
> what does linux do in terms of file locking? is there a level of
> abstraction above specific filesystems and file sharing protocols?
>
> what are the options for getting locking to work with
> local access to the file system + NFS + samba + netatalk?
There was a whole thread on this a few months back (less than 6 mo ago, IIRC)
which might be a good place to start looking. It sticks in my mind that there
were a few people who were either working on a similar project or were willing
to contribute, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
I'll bzip2 my mbox format discussion list archive and email it to you if you
can't find an archive, but it seems like the groups were on-line somewhere.
I don't know where, though. I'm sure someone does... :)
--Danny
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:34 EDT