[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?
From: |
rader |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs? |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:18:13 -0500 |
> >bash$ diff -u lock_file.c.orig lock_file.c
> >--- lock_file.c.orig 2008-04-05 13:41:37.000000000 -0500
> >+++ lock_file.c 2008-10-18 09:53:03.000000000 -0500
> >@@ -365,6 +365,9 @@
> > if ((fd = open (file, access, mode)) == -1)
> > return -1;
> >
> >+/* SR HACK */
> >+return fd;
> >+
> > /*
> > * Get the name of the eventual lock file, as well
> > * as a name for a temporary lock file.
>
> The trouble with this is that it's in the file locking
> function (I know you said this was just a hack but I thought
> I'd point out the pitfalls in advance). Any changes to this
> have to be very carefully audited because the same function
> is used for locking the mail spool. So the code has to both
> work in and of itself (ie two nmhs mustn't tread on each
> others' toes) but also with any other implementation of the
> dot-locking algorithm, including nasty cases like running
> over NFS. Bugs here will mean very occasionally corrupted
> or lost mail.
I just did some googling on this. It seems that link() is really
required when dealing with mail spools because it's the only atomic
way to lock. So this whole "no-links configuration option" idea is
a bad idea, and I now realize that I'll never be able to safely inc
over sshfs.
Shoulda just used AFS in the first place: it's got encryption,
link(), speedy client side caching, and the usual CW against using
AFS for a mail spool (other systems' callbacks cause you to wait)
doesn't really apply for a single user mail server.
steve
--
- [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, rader, 2008/10/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, Jerry Peek, 2008/10/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, rader, 2008/10/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, rader, 2008/10/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, Peter Maydell, 2008/10/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?,
rader <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, Jerry Peek, 2008/10/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, rader, 2008/10/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, rader, 2008/10/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh over sshfs?, Robert Elz, 2008/10/20