From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: file system change notification Date: 28 Aug 2001 10:24:37 GMT Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) Lines: 25 Message-ID: <9mfrh5$n8n$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE> References: <9md8v7$n7c$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 998994277 23831 137.226.32.75 (28 Aug 2001 10:24:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Aug 2001 10:24:37 GMT Originator: broeker@ To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com A. Sinan Unur wrote: [...] > Agreed. To clarify, what I have are a number of computers where a number of > participants in an experiment will be making decisions. These decisions > generate data, and those data get saved on a network drive. So I wanted to > have a program that monitored this directory for new data files. I would be surprised if even that Windows-based technique would work if you ran it on any other but the network drive's serving machine. IOW, I doubt that this monitoring hook provided by Windows works across the network --- the network load and filesystem latency induced by it would be too bad. So unless your file server is a DOS machine (which I dearly hope it isn't :-), there would not even be a remote possibility of getting this to work in real DOS. In a nutshell: monitoring the filesystem is not the proper way of handling this, IMHO. Let the clients inform the master by RPC or whatever other network-transparent message passing method you can come up with. What the heck, it might even be optimal to just have the client sent automatized EMails... -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.