home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- [I would like to avoid an NFS flame fest if possible.
- If you respond, please keep it in the context of a
- UNIX standards discussion, as Chip has mostly
- done here. Thanks. --Fletcher ]
-
- Submitted-by: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)
-
- According to nick@bis.com (Nick Bender):
- >Any program which assumes that write(2) always works is broken. Period.
-
- True.
-
- >In my view this is not a reason to call NFS a botch.
-
- Also true ... but the possible failure of write() wasn't my reason.
-
- NFS is an interesting and occasionally useful service. However, it it
- does not provide UNIX filesystem semantics. In particular, given
- appropriate permissions, link() and mkdir() on a UNIX filesystem are
- guaranteed to succeed exactly once. On an NFS mount, however, they
- may report failure even after having succeeded.
-
- Also, the vaunted "advantage" of NFS, it's statelessness, goes out the
- window as soon as you want to lock a file.
-
- Finally, NFS does not permit access to remove special files such as
- devices and named pipes.
-
- Yes, Virginia, NFS is a botch.
-
- So what is the relevance of NFS's dain bramage to this newsgroup?
- Simply that NFS is not POSIX compliant. Therefore, using NFS as an
- example of how the namespace is supposedly almost useless is nothing
- more than a straw man. If a person wants to knock remote UNIX
- filesystems, let him try to knock reasonable ones like RFS and AFS.
-
- No, Dan, this article does not imply that network connections don't
- belong in the filesystem. It means that *if* link() and mkdir() are
- defined on a UNIX filesystem, they must succeed exactly once. Compare
- a UNIX system that has mounted a CP/M disk. The CP/M disk format
- precludes the use of link() and mkdir(), yet the UNIX namespace is
- quite useful for accessing the files on the disk.
- --
- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 191
-
-