On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Vitaliy Gusev wrote:
Due to those reasons code modification will 100% break WebNFS functionality.
So question is: Is it real used technology or not? Maybe it is time
to drop it out as unused?
I have no idea how much WebNFS is used but it does dramatically reduce
the transactional overhead of NFS mounting and should work much better
through firewalls. NFS URLs are a useful simplification. NFSv4 has
likely also offered some of the same improvements by implementing more
functionality in one TCP connection although it likely still requires
more transactions. Here is a bit from an article I wrote for BYTE
magazine in 1996 about WebNFS:
"Obviously in order to improve NFS's performance over high-latency
networks, NFS needs to eliminate portmapping, mounting, and
pathname recursion overheads. To accomplish this, Sun has decided
to make three assumptions: the NFS default port is 2049, a
directory may be exported as "public" with a known handle (zero or
null length), and, pathname delimiters are similar to HTTP URL's in
that they use a forward slash to separate path elements (allowing
full paths to be specified)."
While I still have the original article text and figures, it does not
seem to be available on the net any more since BYTE went defunct.
WebNFS was Sun's response to Microsoft's CIFS which was originally
supposed to be usable over the Internet. Neighter one seems to have
enjoyed any actual success for use in web browsers.
I definitely agree that code which is not periodically tested is sure
to become broken.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
[email protected], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
-------------------------------------------
illumos-discuss
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
