On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Rahul Nabar wrote: > I came across a snippet in the sqlite FAQ that warns against using > some network file-systems due to file locking bugs. In the past I've > had excellent experiences using NFS+Linux (CentOS) so was wondering if > people had comments if or not this (fairly vague) warning might apply > to NFS or not at all? > > From the sqlite FAQ: > > .........the file locking logic of many network filesystems > implementation contains bugs (on both Unix and Windows). If file > locking does not work like it should, it might be possible for two or > more client programs to modify the same part of the same database at > the same time, resulting in database corruption.......... It's really not clear what is meant by this vague warning. Maybe you should ask for details from the sqlite development community. > Does file-locking in NFS work "as it should". Is this dependent on the > particular options I pass to the NFS mount? e.g. I usually use hard > mounts with the intr option. > A snippet from my fstab: > > eustorage:/opt /opt nfs > rw,nodev,noatime,nfsvers=3,timeo=110,retrans=50,hard,intr,proto=udp,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 > 0 0 > > If I desired the ideal file-locking properties should I be modifying / > adding any particular option? You have two choices on Linux clients: "lock" and "nolock". They control whether file locks appear to other clients or not. I assume your applications cares about serialization with processes only on the same client where it is running. Mount options almost certainly do not matter in this case. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
