On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:21 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 October 2010 15:14, Eric Van Hensbergen <eri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just to make sure I understand things correctly, where does this mess
>> things up with standard (as opposed to synthetic) file systems?
>
> i think that part of the problem is that plan 9 makes no distinction
> between "standard" and "synthetic" file systems.
>
> perhaps if there was, then optimisations like this could
> work a little less haphazardly.
>
Yeah, that was sort of a baseline assumption for me. Most of the
synthetic file servers are susceptible to problems from such short
cuts (although as Brucee points out, that depends on the short-cut and
the file server). However, in many cases those servers don't need
particularly high performance. It would be nice to have a
system/protocol capable of satisfying both design points. Perhaps
pi-p could provide such flexibility, perhaps it would need to be
something else.
-eric
