dont some applications sort of rely on the named piped/socket being unique on a cluster filesystem as a part of their locking system.
i wont want to use pipes/socket as a general purpose communication system across afs though. there are probably better choices. i just want a globally consistent reference in the filesystem to a local/client context. On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:59:06 -0600 "Spencer E. Olson" <[email protected]> wrote: > From the users' point of view, practically speaking, another > advantage for not writing these back is that a user could start up > processes that create these sockets/pipes from multiple locations > without disruption. > > If you have sockets/named pipes written back to the server, can they > really be used from multiple clients? The idea of "distributed > sockets/named pipes" as Tom Keiser pointed out would require > implementation in the file server, i.e. socket/pipe data to be sent > accross the file server (wouldn't it?). It also seems that this kind > of solution would require some new type of knowledge on the part of > the software that reads/writes to/from the sockets/pipes. This seems > a bit more of a stretch in terms of purpose/goals of AFS. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
