apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <li...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr-util/dbm/sdbm sdbm.c
Date Tue, 08 May 2001 20:02:49 GMT
From: "Sander Striker" <striker@samba-tng.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:33 PM

> [...] 
> >> Well, samba uses it pretty heaviliy. I don't know about the limited
> >> portability, could you expand on this? (is it limited to *nix or do you
> >> refer to something else?)
> > 
> > Strictly non-unixes, AFAIK.  If I lock bytes 40-44 on a Win32 
> > file on a network share or under win9x, I'm locking bytes 0-4095.
> > It's not really good about byte ranges, except perhaps on the local NT
> > volume between processes.
> Ok, but you wouldn't want your db to reside on a network drive anyway,
> would you (this sucks the life right out of performance)?

No, not in _most_ cases :-)  That doesn't mean it should break.

> Also, locally there should be no 4k block size locking issues. If you
> read http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/winbase/filesio_63xh.htm
> and http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/winbase/filesio_39h4.htm
> you see that there is nothing mentioned about it (this doesn't actually
> mean anything, I know :^P ).

I recall older fat based locking schemas used this as well, dunno when it
was resolved, precisely (I go back to msdos 1.8, cpm/mpm and xenix, so the 
details sometimes escape me :-)

> LockFile() is available on W95+ and NT3.1+, LockFileEx() on NT3.1+.

Hmmm... need to check we aren't trusting LockFile in Win9x/ME then.

View raw message