Larry Jones wrote: >Derek Price writes [quoting me]: > > >>>Since directory >>>creation is supposed to be atomic, even under NFS, I would argue that >>>any NFS implementation that returns based on a cache rather than waiting >>>for the server response is just plain broken. >>> >>> >>Possibly, but as far as I know it is a common problem. Don't know why. >> >> > >"Common" as in "occurs with lots of different implementations" or >"common" as in "occurs with lots of different machines, all of which are >running some variant of Linux"? If it were the former, I'd have >expected to have run into it long ago. > >
Common, as in I seem to recall finding lots of references on the web when I had to solve this problem the first time. A quick Google search for "nfs directory caching" <http://www.google.com/search?q=nfs+directory+caching> brings up high scoring references to turning off a similar cache with a Solaris NFS client, a WOE32 NFS client, and an unspecified client from anl.gov. Linux shows up around search result #8 or #9. Cheers, Derek -- Derek R. Price CVS Solutions Architect Ximbiot <http://ximbiot.com> v: +1 717.579.6168 f: +1 717.234.3125 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
