With apologies for cross-posting On 1 Jun 2007, at 00:51, Amit Singh wrote to [email protected] :
> On May 31, 2:02 pm, stovak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mounting a solaris SFTP share at my office, sometimes when I save > > To be pedantic, "SFTP *share*" is a misnomer in that sshfs is not > exactly set up for concurrent "sharing" with other accessors. We don't > have a true distributed file system here. Innovation and experimentation are great things -- expect the unexpected! As people naturally experiment: there is great value in clear, concise, user-friendly explanations. I see what Amit says as in no way pedantic. For newcomers to MacFUSE, we'll need appropriate help and documentation. First, though... <http://code.google.com/p/macfusion/wiki/SeeAlso> refers to Apple's 'Overview of Mac OS X File Systems', which applies the generic expression 'network file system' to * AFP (Apple File Protocol) * NFS (Network File System) but not to SMB/CIFS. A few points: 1) I prefer Amit's expression 'distributed file system' -- the word 'distributed' is more likely to conjure images of multiple users, or of concurrent edits by multiple users. 2) I don't equate WebDAV (extensions to a protocol) with a network file system, but I do think of WebDAV as 'comparable to' a distributed file system -- because the protocol set makes a logical and easily-understandable equation between *check out* and *file locking* (to guard against other users writing to a *copy* of a file that you may be editing). On one hand: compared to AFP and SMB, WebDAV can be flaky. I know that huge efforts have gone into making AFP cope successfully with unpredictable applications. On the other hand: I guess that checking out (in WebDAV) could be more harmonious with network (Location) changes of laptop, and with sleep/wake behaviour in general. Thoughts? (This could be a separate thread...) 3) When outlining limitations in general, I tend to say: > Whilst CurlFtpFS and SSHFS ... fine alternative[s] to more > traditional FTP and SFTP clients, it should be noted that protocols > such as AFP and WebDAV are currently more suitable for shared files > that may, rarely, be in concurrent use by multiple editors. (Think: > locks on files that are opened with write privileges.) This > reflects the limitations of SSHFS as a system -- not a failing of > MacFUSE or MacFusion or any plug-in. If there is any more positive or generic way of expressing this, I'll gladly receive suggestions from the communities. 4) A recent overview of SMB and CIFS protocols is at <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365233.aspx> but this lacks explanatory graphics. Microsoft's definitive document is in fact an _executable_ (not a normal document) so ten-year-old <http://www.microsoft.com/mind/1196/cifs.asp> could be a better introduction. 5) ADC Reference Library description of AFP as 'AppleTalk Filing Protocol' is misleading (AFP is not limited to legacy AppleTalk), I have used the link on that page to report the inaccuracy. 6) OT from MacFUSE, should we expect SSHFS to become more like a distributed file system? I suspect not -- tweaking a distributed file system to cope with unpredictable applications is probably an endless, fairly thankless task! In any case, SSHFS is more than fine as it is :-) Regards Graham --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "macfuse-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macfuse-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
