From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Sep 19 19:35:35 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA11289 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from po2.glue.umd.edu (po2.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.45]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA11261 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from skipper.eng.umd.edu (skipper.eng.umd.edu [129.2.103.24]) by po2.glue.umd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA24361; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 22:35:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by skipper.eng.umd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11503; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 22:35:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: skipper.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 22:35:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@skipper.eng.umd.edu To: "Ron G. Minnich" cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: user-level distributed shared memory available for freebsd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Ron G. Minnich wrote: > This system is called ZOUNDS. it's all user mode, no special sysadmin > needed to use it, uses TCP, comes with manual and a sample app. It can > exploit rfork if you have it in your 2.2+ system, provides a simple > shared-file-descriptor rfork loadable module if you have earlier than > 2.2, and for most cases doesn't have to have rfork anyways (There's only > one specific case where it is helpful but not necessary). > > bugs to me, of course. Ron, where is this? I don't know if you have the time to pander to my curiosity on one point, but I'm sure you know the anser to this (if you're not too busy). I know unix in general has never had a really good file locking system. Why doesn't someone write one just for FreeBSD? I've often wondered why I couldn't write something that would look at ufs, and at inodes, say (as a locking point, I think) and make an absolute, enforceable locking call for FreeBSD. I know it would be completely non-portable, but wouldn't it make FreeBSD kinda unique among unixes? I am innocent of the higher level locking strategies (I'm in school for that right now, which is teaching me how dumb I am), but I was wondering if there is some reason it couldn't be done? > > ron > > Ron Minnich |"If you leave out all the killings, D.C. has as > rminnich@sarnoff.com | low a crime rate as many cities" -- > (609)-734-3120 | D.C. Mayor Marion Barry > ftp://ftp.sarnoff.com/pub/mnfs/www/docs/cluster.html > > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------