Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 22:45:50 -0500 From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: terry@cs.weber.edu Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Making a FreeBSD NFS server Message-ID: <199508210345.WAA29762@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <9508201948.AA23045@cs.weber.edu> References: <Pine.BSI.3.91.950820150733.17751w-100000@aries>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <9508201948.AA23045@cs.weber.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> wrote: >Unless you are running everything on the same box, it's impossible to >provide inter-machine consistency guarantees. That's why NFS is the >way it is. Oh, crap. You handle machine failures the same way you handle disk failures. If you can't handle disk failures you shouldn't have a stateful *local* file system. For conventional file I/O you can get pretty much the same recovery semantics both ways (client reloads state), and for non-file I/O you get the choice of no access at all or error returns. I'll take the error returns. I've used stateless and stateful remote file systems, and I'll take stateful any day. I'd much rather type: tar tvfB //xds13/dev/rmt0 Than: rsh xds13 dd if=/dev/rmt0 | tar tvfb - And it's awful nice to be able to set up a getty on //modem1/dev/ttyc4. And being able to get open-count semantics on temp files. And accessing named pipes over the net. And "fsck //hurtsystem/dev/rw0a". And so on... I really miss OpenNET.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508210345.WAA29762>