Subject: Re: Why flock-locks?

From: marcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:21:01 +1300

The with-flock-locks uses what asun calls - the 'old style' file 
locking code. If you don't include it, Quark will throw up "File in 
Use" error messages when saving/closing and re-opening a file from 
time to time. With with-flock-locks, Quark *NEVER* complains. (I look 
after 25+ Server with heavy Quark users - so I have a lot of 
experience with this!!)
Quark is the only app which is affects (and some early versions of 
Clarisworks...v4  I think)

I will have a look to see how it works with netatalk-1.5 - maybe 
something during the code cleanup has *fixed* it.

Marcus

>I can't honestly give you a good reason other than I've used it for quite
>a long time and it appears to help with some Quark-specific issues.
>
>-Dan
>
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Thomas Schierle wrote:

>  On 2002-01-05 21:24 +0100, Daniel E. Lautenschleger wrote:
>
>  > I would also include the --with-flock-locks. I'm not sure why the netatalk
>  > file is not making it into /etc/pam.d. This happened for me awhile back
>  > but it was fixed.
>
>  Could you please elaborate the benefits of flock-locks?
>
>  For my usage, byte range locking seems to be up to par to
>  flock-locks (Linux 2.4.x kernel), therefore I'm wondering why
>  the old locking scheme (which has had the "benefit" not to
>  do anything when running on old kernels) gets still propagated.
>
-- 
========================================================

"Always ask the question, never assume the answer."
		Marcus Radich 1999

========================================================