filePro on SuSe 9.0 Linux NFS mounts - problem with NO LOCKS AVAILABLE

[Fairlight]

Y'all catch dis heeyah?  Walter Vaughan been jivin' 'bout like:
> Googling "no locks available" nfs freebsd
> and      "no locks available" nfs suse
> 
> give two quite different impressions as to problems in the field.

Fair enough.

> FreeBSD today seems to run nfsv3 as default, but you can choose v2 type 
> mounts.

I don't know why anyone would ever choose v2 unless they had to speak to a
system that -only- understood v2.  I suppose that's the one solid reason
for its continued support.

> I do read much about window size effecting (affecting?) throughput. So 
> much so, that's it's the black art magic to make nfs hum or grind to a 
> halt. I can see situations where some *clerk files would run like a 
> dream, but *reports would move like a slug without proper window size.

Ohyeah.  If you have like the default 1K packet sizes, it's a slug.  If
you open it up to 8K packet sizes, it runs as fast as ftp.  And you do
-not- want sync turned on if you want speed.  It cuts the speed on v2 by
a HUGE amount, I kid you not.  Did a test once on a 7GB file transfer,
and with sync it wanted like 23+ hours to complete the transfer.  Without
sync, it would fly in as fast as ftp would do the job.  Yes, there are
mission critical situations where you'd want sync, but it is a -gigantic-
performance hit.

> What "I" don't understand yet is how filePro could deal with two 
> different machines trying to update records in the same file. While I 
> can see each machine properly not overwriting each others records, how 
> do (would) the indexes get updated properly?

Uhm, that falls under, "Not my problem."  I'm not the filePro developer.  I
just maintain the OS and attendant subsystems and extraneous software.  I
keep my mits off the fP side of things as much as my responsibilities let
me.  If the developer gets odd ideas that something will work and they're
willing to take the risk, I'll let them know -if- I know something is bound
to be a bad idea, but I don't go out of my way to step on their toes.

I was told it works, and I'm willing to take their word on it.  They do fP
24/7.  I do it directly only when I have to, which isn't that often.  Large
difference.  Most of my work is integration, network, and web stuff, as
relates to fP.  If someone tells me they're not having index problems, so
be it--I'm not qualified to question their judgement.

But FWIW, how is it different than the DOS network version in that regard?
Maybe I'm not on the same wavelength here, but -if- I understand your point
correctly, I fail to see the difference.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html