From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3190d0e50610310811v5a4a6553oa67e37eb71c7fc20@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:11:49 +0000
From: "Alejo Sanchez" <alejos@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9P and locking
In-Reply-To: <001a50a78f873e5868ec3fd72944686a@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <775b8d190610310644w822038frdc204969ed924ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<001a50a78f873e5868ec3fd72944686a@terzarima.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: da2a4446-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 10/31/06, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> >> > So far my plan to extend is to have messages mimicking fcntl, but
> >> > maybe that's not the best way to get it done. Did anyone work on
> >> > locking and would like to share their experience or opinion?
>
> in commercial unix database work i never found the in-built fcntl or record locking
> particularly useful and did my own.  it was the usual `both too much
> and too little' with the system's attempt, and thus i found it fairly pointless.
> i wrote up something about it at the time but sadly that was years before
> the dumps started.

The database is already doing it and it's quite fast and stable. I'm
only working on the remote file service.