This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: NFS server (final?)
- From: "Robb, Sam" <sam dot robb at timesys dot com>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:46:06 -0500
- Subject: RE: NFS server (final?)
> I've just tried the new binaries and the nfs daemon no longer
> fills the
> Application Log with error messages :)
> The other problem is still there, but this is expected. If anyone can
> offer any hints on how to debug this problem (I'm not familiar
> with nfsd at all) I'd be happy to help to trace it down. Btw
> it is 100%
> reproducible in my setup and with the suggested file sizes.
I tried reproducing it last night, but I was working over a VPN,
and it was painfully slow - copying about 4K/sec. I'll take a
look at it again today, now that I'm back on a local network.
BTW - did you execute the test using a script, or from the command
line? If it was script execution, then you may have tickled a
file descriptor caching problem (by executing a remove immediately
after a copy).
> Sam, some notes about the Cygwin specific readme file:
> Maybe you have to add some lines to it as you have suggested:
> "So, is the answer to remove the seteuid(ROOT_UID) call, and document
> the requirement that the server be run under an account with
> the "Create
> a process level token" right?"
I will do so.
> Also I noticed the following minor inconsistencies in the readme file:
> Runtime requirements:
> cygwin-1.3.17 or newer
> Build requirements:
> cygwin-1.3.17 or newer
> Maybe cygwin-1.3.20 would be better. If you're actually using
> 1.3.17 then this is OK.
I was using 1.3.17 when I started porting :-) I'll update it.
> Also this line is incorrect:
> Files included in the binary distro
Yep. Thanks again!
> Having said that, I think it's time to decide if we want the nfs
> server to become a part of the Cygwin distro now. If we put aside the
> problem with the directory removal maybe it is good to release this
> version as is. Then when the "bug" is fixed a version -2 will
> be released.
> I don't really know, how big is the demand of a nfs server and how
> the inclusion of one will impact the popularity of Cygwin,
> but I remember
> some comments on the main list, that some people are using
> Interix only
> for its nfs server functionality.
I'd be happy to release at this point, though I'd like to take a look
at your test case and see if the problem has an obvious cause and