[OpenAFS] File locking

Daniel Wood danw@compbook.co.uk
Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:12:17 +0100

Sorry if that came across wrong!  I do understand that other things will
have priority, and everyone's priorities are different.  Also yes, things
have come a long way for the Windows client.

I just don't entirely understand why large organisations don't find it as
important - I can still accept that they do and am not criticising the
directions your work takes.  Good luck with hitting 1.4!



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Altman" <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com>
To: "Daniel Wood" <danw@compbook.co.uk>
Cc: <openafs-info@openafs.org>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] File locking

> Daniel:
> People have been using AFS and NFS with Windows for over a decade
> without the byte-range locking.   There are things you simply should
> not do with it.
> There are many sites that for years have stored the users Windows
> profiles in AFS and take advantage of redirected folders.  People
> are certainly using AFS from Windows with read/write folders.  I
> certainly do.
> Would AFS be appropriate for a shared project directory from which
> multiple users edit Microsoft Office documents at the same time?
> At the current time the answer is 'no'.
> The other items are of higher priority because they affect extremely
> large organizations that are current users of AFS and have been for
> a very long time.   While I understand that this issue is a critical
> issue for you, it is not for hundreds of thousands of users that
> already have AFS deployed and might be forced to migrate to another
> distributed file system that currently does not exist simply because
> (a) there is no appearance of a "stable" product
> (b) recent regulations have imposed new auditing and security requirements
> (c) the use of AFS on Windows is for all practical purposes restricted
> to ASCII while their users come from hundreds of countries around the
> Your request is on the list.   If you look at all that has been
> accomplished over the last eighteen months you will see that we have
> come a long way.   I wonder if you would have even considered AFS at
> all on Windows at the end of 2003.
> Jeffrey Altman
> Daniel Wood wrote:
> > Thanks for the info,
> >
> > Just wondering, would it not require any changes to the server's locking
> > mechanisms as well as the client to accomplish this?
> >
> > Also, I'm surprised that it is not a higher priority since it seems a
> > critical problem to us.  If this is not implemented then the other
> > are not usable at all due to the risk of data loss, whereas the converse
> > not true.  Do you know of many networks with Windows clients using
> > that are working with read-write shares without problem?  Just curious
as to
> > whether most networks are using the read-only replication features, with
> > volumes only for user directories or something like that (which is
> > we can't do unfortunately!).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dan

This e-mail and the information contained is confidential and is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient or have received it in error we would appreciate a prompt notice that it has been wrongly despatched and will reimburse any reasonable cost involved in notifying us. We thank you for your help in this regard. 
We would also advise that you should not use, disclose or copy this information in any medium, as if you do, you may be breaking the law and thereby incurring liability.
We do not accept any liability to any third party acting or failing to act on, or on any information contained in this e-mail