On 16 November 2010 01:18, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
i claim that a fs with this behavior would be broken. intro(5)
seems to agree with this claim, unless i'm misreading.
you're right - fossil is broken in this respect, as is exportfs
{cd /mnt/term/dev; ls -lq | sort} for
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Dan Adkins dadk...@gmail.com wrote:
That brings up a question of interest to me. How do you effectively
read ahead with the 9p protocol? Even if you issued many read
requests in parallel, the server is allowed to return less data than
was asked for. You'll
i'd say it's a bug. fossil could easily reserve some number of bits
of the qid (say 20 bits) to make the files in the dump unique
while still allowing space for a sufficient number of live files.
that's possibly closest to the intent of the qid discussion in intro(5),
although
it's not clear
i'm sure that somewhere it was suggested that high order bits of Qid.path
should be avoided by file servers to allow for their use to make qids unique
but i haven't been able to find that.
unfortunately, there's just not enough bits to easily export
(an export)+.
i wonder if there's some way
unfortunately, there's just not enough bits to easily export
(an export)+.
i think that works: it checks for clashes.
On 16 November 2010 16:32, Charles Forsyth fors...@terzarima.net wrote:
unfortunately, there's just not enough bits to easily export
(an export)+.
i think that works: it checks for clashes.
only when a file is actually walked to.
of course, that's fine in practise - the only thing
that
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Sam Watkins s...@nipl.net wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:20:00PM -0500, John Floren wrote:
Please see lsub's Op and my Streaming talk at the most recent IWP9.
Ok, thanks. I did not know that 9p has latency problems even when reading a
single file. I was
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Gorka Guardiola pau...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Sam Watkins s...@nipl.net wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:20:00PM -0500, John Floren wrote:
Please see lsub's Op and my Streaming talk at the most recent IWP9.
Ok, thanks. I did not
On 15 November 2010 14:15, Gorka Guardiola pau...@gmail.com wrote:
By namespaces I mean qid's , the notion that a file is the same if the
name isn't.
mind you, that's problematic in 9p. the qid can be the same even if the
file is different:
% ls -lqd /n/dump/2006/0707/usr/rog
(0003d540
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Sam Watkins s...@nipl.net wrote:
hi,
I am wondering what you think about the capabilities of 9p compared to
http/1.1. Perhaps this seems like an odd comparison, but I think 9p and
http
are broadly similar in purpose and functionality. While writing a
Under certain situations, 9p can do some forms of pipelining. The tagged
requests don't have to be waited on in order, for the next outgoing request
to be sent, unless there's a dependency of one completing before the other,
or the evaluation of completion of a previous one on another.
Only
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas m...@acm.jhu.edu wrote:
Under certain situations, 9p can do some forms of pipelining. The tagged
requests don't have to be waited on in order, for the next outgoing
request
to be sent, unless there's a dependency of one completing before
% ls -lqd /n/dump/2006/0707/usr/rog
(0003d540 1122 80) d-rwxr-xr-x M 42850 rog rog 0 Jun 7 2005
/n/dump/2005/0707/usr/rog
% ls -lqd /n/dump/2006/0707/usr/rog
(0003d540 1157 80) d-rwxr-xr-x M 42850 rog rog 0 Jun 12 2006
/n/dump/2006/0707/usr/rog
they have the same qid but they're
2010/11/15 C H Forsyth fors...@vitanuova.com:
% ls -lqd /n/dump/2006/0707/usr/rog
(0003d540 1122 80) d-rwxr-xr-x M 42850 rog rog 0 Jun 7 2005
/n/dump/2005/0707/usr/rog
% ls -lqd /n/dump/2006/0707/usr/rog
(0003d540 1157 80) d-rwxr-xr-x M 42850 rog rog 0 Jun 12 2006
the qid values are actually different
true, but qid.version doesn't help much.
what!? i'd hate to see a file server that didn't
much care which qid.version it had. those directories
you listed are different.
- erik
On 15 November 2010 16:48, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
the qid values are actually different
true, but qid.version doesn't help much.
what!? i'd hate to see a file server that didn't
much care which qid.version it had. those directories
you listed are different.
if you
That brings up a question of interest to me. How do you effectively
read ahead with the 9p protocol? Even if you issued many read
requests in parallel, the server is allowed to return less data than
was asked for. You'll end up with holes in your buffer that require
at least another roundtrip
if you mount onto one, you'll see the mounted files
on the other.
gorka was talking about identifying files from their qid.
the version number doesn't help in identifying the file -
someone could have modified the file 35 times between
stats.
what definition of file are you using? you've
On 15 November 2010 19:29, erik quanstrom quans...@labs.coraid.com wrote:
if you mount onto one, you'll see the mounted files
on the other.
gorka was talking about identifying files from their qid.
the version number doesn't help in identifying the file -
someone could have modified the file
That brings up a question of interest to me. How do you effectively
read ahead with the 9p protocol? Even if you issued many read
requests in parallel, the server is allowed to return less data than
was asked for. You'll end up with holes in your buffer that require
at least another
The option is to make servers obey R order for Ts with same tag - just
as Russ (right?) proposed elsewhere on the list.
no. tags have no order and clients are specificly disallowed
from having multiple messages with the same tag outstanding.
again, see intro(5).
the option is to issue many
i claim that a fs with this behavior would be broken. intro(5)
seems to agree with this claim, unless i'm misreading.
you're right - fossil is broken in this respect, as is exportfs
{cd /mnt/term/dev; ls -lq | sort} for a quick demo.
so what's fossil's excuse?
- erik
hi,
I am wondering what you think about the capabilities of 9p compared to
http/1.1. Perhaps this seems like an odd comparison, but I think 9p and http
are broadly similar in purpose and functionality. While writing a simple
webserver, I got to thinking that http is really a very capable
Please see lsub's Op and my Streaming talk at the most recent IWP9.
Also, regarding 'cat', the behavior of many basic tools is that,
barring any file arguments, they take stdin as input and output to
stdout, so cat's behavior makes sense to me.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Sam Watkins
i'm with john
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Floren slawmas...@gmail.com wrote:
Please see lsub's Op and my Streaming talk at the most recent IWP9.
Also, regarding 'cat', the behavior of many basic tools is that,
barring any file arguments, they take stdin as input and output to
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:20:00PM -0500, John Floren wrote:
Please see lsub's Op and my Streaming talk at the most recent IWP9.
Ok, thanks. I did not know that 9p has latency problems even when reading a
single file. I was talking about pipelining, where you can ask the server to
send a dozen
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Sam Watkins s...@nipl.net wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:20:00PM -0500, John Floren wrote:
Please see lsub's Op and my Streaming talk at the most recent IWP9.
Ok, thanks. I did not know that 9p has latency problems even when reading a
single file. I was
27 matches
Mail list logo
