[ On Monday, January 27, 2003 at 02:48:59 (-0800), Kenneth Porter wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Discouraging :local:
>
> --On Saturday, January 25, 2003 2:42 PM -0500 "Greg A. Woods"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The latter, the sharing part, is where the real trouble begins.
> > Ensuring reliable order of operations for various operations which would
> > be "atomic" on a local filesystem is very very difficult (literally
> > impossible in some cases) for shared network filesystems.
>
> Do we include Samba in this? (I use Samba to host some PVCS archives and
> haven't seen any archive corruption. All access is "local" because I'm
> using the peer-to-peer PVCS stuff, not server stuff.)
Yes, I think so. As far as I know samba has no locking protocol (I
don't think the underlying SMB protocol has locking either, but I may be
mistaken).
> Is Ethernet then unreliable? Isn't the data integrity handled at the
> physical layer, with CRC's?
Well, generically speaking Ethernet's FCS field is a 32-bit CRC of the
whole data frame. However if I understand the math correctly that means
that only 32-bit or shorter errors (remember Ethernet is serial) can be
detected reliabliy and "only" about 99.955% of error bursts longer than
32 bits can be detected. Ethernet frames containing TCP or UDP IP
packets can be large -- up to ~1500 bytes.
The TCP and UDP data integrity checks are only a 16-bit checksum, and
while they might catch errors that the Ethernet FCS doesn't, they also
might not.
SCSI bus parity checks are a little more reliable and predictable (not
to mention that the SCSI bus electrical characteristics are a whole lot
different too, thus changing the nature of the possible errors).
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
