SUMMARY: rpc.lockd patches

From: Mike Cringoli (fed!
Date: Thu Mar 14 1991 - 15:27:08 CST

> Anyone care to share their experience with rpc.lockd patch 100075-05
> or 100075-06? We're several patches behind and thinking about installing
> a later patch. But we've installed lockd patches in the past only to find
> that performance with the new patch was worse than with the previous one.
> We have about 130 Sun3s and Sun4s running SunOS 4.0.3. To complicate
> matters, we have several Solbournes running Solbourne's OS/MP 4.0C and 4.0D.
> The latest patch we can get from Solbourne right now is 100075-05. So unless
> Solbourne will be releasing 100075-06 soon, we'll have to decide if we want
> to install 100075-05 on all our machines, or 100075-06 on the Suns and
> 100075-05 on the Solbournes. Is there any experiennce out there with
> a mix of 100075-05 and 100075-06? Is 100075-05 decent? How about 100075-06?

I didn't get too many responses. The good news is that, with only one
exception, both 100075-05 and 100075-06 have been working well.

The patches have been installed on Sun3's, Sun4's and Solbournes, with
SunOS 4.0.3, 4.1, and 4.1.1, and Solbourne's 4.0D. Some sites have a mix
of operating systems and architectures. The one site that had problems
got 100075-06 second-hand from a software vendor so there still may be
hope for them. Nobody is mixing different versions of the lockd patch
on the same net.

But something doesn't make any sense to me. This week I installed 4.1.1 on a
new sparcstation2. When I do a "what" on the 4.1.1 version of rpc.lockd I
see that it is newer than the 100075-06 version. Yet there have been several
complaints from people running 4.1.1 that the lockd is broken. Did Sun
break it again?

We decided to wait for Solbourne to release the 100075-06 patch and install
that version everywhere. There's a good chance Solbourne will be ready to
release the patch sometime next week.

Thanks to:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:06:12 CDT