> A proper filesystem does not need ports to different architectures. If you modify this to replace "proper" with "modern", I'd be inclined to agree. Cross-architectural purity is definitely useful, but doesn't impact on whether the software has value or not.
> OpenAFS and GPFS are > unfortuntately full of design bugs and hacks that don't let them fall > into this category. At least in the case of AFS, it predates the existence of most modern operating systems (it certainly predates the existence of Linux and any of the assumptions thereupon), so some amount of cruft is (IMHO) forgivable. The AFS design has held together rather well for something of its vintage. Life in VAX-land wasn't that easy, and we should be tolerant of the aged. GPFS doesn't have that excuse, though. One would expect better behavior for something designed in the modern era. > For those using afs there is an in-kernel client > that has seen a lot of work lately and will be support all features > of openafs soon while fixing all these issues. There are rumors that > it will be supported by RedHat in future releases. It would be nice if it tracked the openafs tree a little closer, though. The in-kernel code has needed a lot of work so far to avoid causing miscellaneous problems in large deployments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
