From: Geoff Arnold (geoff.arnold@sun.com)
Date: 08/16/98-11:58:24 PM Z
Message-ID: <35D7B870.3F9B25AB@sun.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:58:24 -0400 From: Geoff Arnold <geoff.arnold@sun.com> Subject: Re: FREE_ALL locks Brent Callaghan wrote: > > In order to release all the locks on client crash we need LOCKF > > (FREE_ALL) request which is missing from the spec. > > I assume here that by "client" you're referring to an application > or process running on a client machine. Obviously if the client > machine crashes it's not going to have much of an opportunity to > blurt out a "free all my locks" as it crashes. > > Given that lock leases will eventually time out anyway, there's no strong case > for cluttering up the protocol with yet another locking operation. Sorry, Brent, I have to weigh in here. Exactly how long do you expect lock leases to be? If they're too short, clients will have to keep renewing long-lived locks. If they're long, a "free_all" is a real win. In the old LM protocol we included a "free-all" because we used long-lived locks to handle DOS file sharing modes. With smarter servers, it might be worthwhile to generalize the "free_all" call into a "flush all resources associated with this client", including locks, cached structures, in-progress long duration operations (think CD juke-box), etc. That way we wouldn't be cluttering up the protocol with yet another locking operation :-) Geoff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:46:08 AM Z CST