Bug 3242 - need NFS-*unsafe* locker for unix
Summary: need NFS-*unsafe* locker for unix
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Libraries (show other bugs)
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Hardware: Other other
: P5 normal
Target Milestone: 3.0.0
Assignee: Justin Mason
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 3208
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2004-04-05 11:32 UTC by Justin Mason
Modified: 2004-04-28 07:33 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Justin Mason 2004-04-05 11:32:55 UTC 
We're currently using NFS-safe locking code for the bayes dbs on UNIX platforms.
 This is very wastefully slow when NFS is not in use.   We should provide a
simple fcntl-based locker for the "dbs on local fs only" case.

Can this locker be used by default?   What's the lock-safety status of modern
NFS impls?

If it's still pretty unsafe, we'll have to keep the nfs-safe version the
default, and activate this if the user specifies a config param.   (note that
activating it if the fs is mounted as a non-NFS fstype is still not a safe
assumption, since the setup could be that 1 scanning machine hosts the fs and
several others use the same fs over nfs.)
Comment 1 Justin Mason 2004-04-27 21:30:11 UTC 
so -- does anyone object to me adding a new config item to control this?
Comment 2 Daniel Quinlan 2004-04-27 23:12:54 UTC 
Subject: Re:  need NFS-*unsafe* locker for unix

> so -- does anyone object to me adding a new config item to control this?

+1 for new config item
Comment 3 Kelsey Cummings 2004-04-28 00:48:17 UTC 
Subject: Re:  need NFS-*unsafe* locker for unix

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:30:12PM -0700, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
> http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3242
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From jm@jmason.org  2004-04-27 21:30 -------
> so -- does anyone object to me adding a new config item to control this?

I think it's a great idea.
Comment 4 Justin Mason 2004-04-28 14:12:12 UTC 
taking
Comment 5 Justin Mason 2004-04-28 15:33:13 UTC 
ok, done