Tom Keiser wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Matt W. Benjamin<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A priority for openafs is to merge the rxosd changeset. One obstacle to >> merging is the use of two 'unused' members in existing structures without >> prior coordination. We've been asked to move discussion of the topic into >> this forum, which we hereby do. >> > > Hi Matt, > > Perhaps I'm missing some context since I couldn't make it to the > workshop this year, but I sense that we're really getting ahead of > ourselves -- rxosd (at least in the 1.4.8 tarball I received at the > Google hackathon) is neither cache coherent, nor consistent. Until > we, as a community, have a chance to re-architect rxosd to follow afs3 > semantics, and to properly support transactional semantics with regard > to vnodes and the volume package, I think it's premature to talk about > how afs3 should be modified to deal with these namespace collisions.
Tom, could you please explain why you think AFS with rxosd would be neither cache coherent nor consistent? Hartmut > > Regards, > > -Tom > [email protected] -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hartmut Reuter e-mail [email protected] phone +49-89-3299-1328 fax +49-89-3299-1301 RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching) web http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP) ----------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
