On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 03:34, Michael B. Allen wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:02:59 -0600 > > Um... Just curious, but how are "oplocks are unreliable by definition"? > > I wondered what was meant by this too. I concluded it was just a zealous > choice of words. I believe he means that a) even after being granted an > oplock break the client may still find the file is locked and ultimately > get a sharing violation and b) on any system other than Windows or systems > with kernel oplocks the file can still be written to and possibly c) > if the oplock holder looses connectivity and another writer commits > changes data will be lost. There's nothing unreliable or technically > flawed about the protocol though. NFSv4 will have the same issues. Hi,
Sorry if I had confused you. I was thinking about the "c" scenario. Regards, Olaf Fraczyk
