Return-Path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:39215 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751559Ab0HMUyz (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:54:55 -0400 Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so3054946wyb.19 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Nabar Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: NFS and file locking for use with sqllite To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 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.......... 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? -- Rahul