Nicolas Williams wrote: > ... > >>It would be nice to see a commitment to closing any remaining gap as >>much as possible, perhaps by further development of NFSv4 -- as others >>have suggested. >> >>As a final note, I do recall that cachefs was supposed to be generic for >>things like cdroms, etc. I do agree with the proposal that cachefs like >>behavior for anything *other than NFS* is probably not terribly interesting. >> >> > >I don't. cachefs like behaviour could be useful for CIFS as well (and >some day WebDAV too, why not, and maybe the AFS community would use the >infrastructure if available). > >The problem with cachefs is that it needs to be a service provided to >filesystems that filesystems must use explicitly. > >
To me it sounds like you are saying that cachefs is a nice answer but that its current architecture isn't suitable for a role more wisespread than just NFS. Given this we may as well EOL cachefs and replace it at some point in the future with a feature that does a better job of caching any network based filesystem, not just NFS, right? Darren
