On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:58 PM, ron minnich wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:11 PM, sqweek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I have two measurements of success:
a) what keeps me working on Plan 9 related technologies in a paid
position
b) what switches people from using NFS, GPFS, or other horribly
complicated solutions to something closer to Plan 9
Fair enough. Does .L still qualify as "closer to Plan 9", or is it
NFS by any other name?
well it's pretty different from NFS.
Please excuse the inflammatory phrasing - that's an honest question.
I'm very ignorant about NFS and its differences from 9p, other than
the number of message types.
They're utterly different, at every level. Yes, they give you a
similar service, but ...
Whoa! That's a pretty strong claim. Care to substantiate?
The way I see it: if you look past stalessness (taken care of
in WebNFS and NFS4) eagerness to do proper caching and
on-the-wire messages there are, actually, quite a few similarities
between the two:
FH is a moral equivalent of a Qid
ACCESS is a moral equivalent of open
SETATTR/GETATTR is like stat/wstat
LOOKUP is like walk (especially so in WebNFS)
READ/WRITE/CREATE/REMOVE is there in both
That leaves READLINK, MKDIR, SYMLINK, MKNOD,
RMDIR, RENAME, READDIR[PLUS] and some FSINFO* stuff.
Now, you can't do POSIX without SYMLINK, READLINK, MKNOD and RENAME
so I expect to see them in .L
That leaves MKDIR/RMDIR and READDIR[PLUS] which doesn't
strike me as that huge of a diff.
Am I missing the point you're trying to make?
Thanks,
Roman.
