Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:00, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:01:09PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > Making the server stateless is wrong
> > why?
> Because it leads to all the problems we have seen! Why not have the client
> have an open file handle (the way Samba works and the way the Unix file
> system API works)? Then when the server goes down the client sends a request
> to open the file again...
> > making the readdir a multioperation act is wrong
> > why? i have 3M directories... ar you saying clients should read the
> > whole things at once?
> No. findfirst()/findnext() is the correct way of doing this. Forcing the
> client to read through 3M directory entries to see if "foo.*" matches
> anything is just wrong. The client should be able to ask for a list of file
> names matching certain criteria (time stamp, name, ownership, etc). The
> findfirst() and findnext() APIs on DOS, OS/2, and Windows do this quite well.
there is a fundamental conflict between having cookies, shrinkable directories,
and the ability to
find foo.* without reading the whole directory, all at the same time.
NFS V4 is designed by braindead twerps incapable of layering software when
> If you have 3M directory entries then SMB should kick butt over NFS.
> Also while we're at it, one of the worst things about NFS is the issue of
> delete. Because it's stateless NFS servers implement unlink as "mv" and
> things get nasty from there...
> http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
> http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
> http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
> http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page