Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] netatalk, samba, ...
From: Eddie Irvine (eirvine@tpgi.com.au)
Date: Fri Mar 12 1999 - 17:55:48 EST
Yes, yes, I know. I was using filemaker to demonstrate that
record/file locking, never one of the finer points of Unix,
may bring down a file that is being Served by Samba and
Netatalk *at the same time*.
I should have made it clear that we use filemaker 3.0 server,
and have done since not long after it was brought out.
Thanks for the info on the --with-netatalk switch, Palle!
Casey Bisson wrote:
>
> This example is exactly how _not_ to do it.
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, Eddie Irvine wrote:
> >
> > } 2) Fred on a Mac and Mary on a PC have the same filemaker database open.
> > } In this situation, I don't think record locking works that well.
> >
> > I think "it depends," based on how FileMaker notes what records are
> > locked. The file won't be locked by the host OS since, well, what would
> > be the point of having a DB that couldn't be shared?
> >
> > If you're bent on FileMaker, you should consider the FM Server thing. It
> > supports record-level locking and handles concurrency better than a
> > shared-file database. That goes for Access, too: you should get a real
> > SQL server instead.
> >
> > Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:16:26 EST