No collaborators. Not that I'm trying at all, the talk kinda got the urge
out of my system.
I therorize that many people could benefit - but no hard data.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41 PM Bakul Shah <bakul(a)iitbombay.org> wrote:
I viewed this last October. Seemed like a bunch of
sensible ideas. Did you
find any collaborators? [Not offering, just curious!]
I see these "storage" categories: chunks, files, namespaces, metadata,
databases & streams [1]. If you define a network protocol to handle
critical operations on them all, implementations would likely follow.
Engineers do better with well defined boundaries compared to "somewhere
beyond there"!
[1] probably could be simplified.
On Aug 13, 2025, at 9:43 AM, Tom Lyon <pugs78(a)gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, my own opinions abut NFS can be seen in my "NFS Must Die!" talk here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVF_djcccKc&ab_channel=TomLyon
Not that NFS *was* bad - but it *is* bad (for non-casual use).
Like the C language, it was great for its time. Not so much anymore.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 9:24 AM Peter Weinberger (温博格) via TUHS <
tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
It was a research proof-of-princple. (i.e..
partly principled and
partly really hacky. My list of its issues was pretty long.)
(If A mounted B's file system somewhere, and B mounted A's, then the
directory tree was infinite. That's mathematics, not a bug.)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:56 AM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:18:34AM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:00???AM Douglas
McIlroy
<douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> I was always sorry that Peter Weinberger's RFS never made it outside
> Bell Labs. It allowed networking between separately administered
> systems by mapping UIDs.
I believe it did? If I recall correctly, it was available with System
V, though perhaps I am misremembering.
Sunos had it, my office mate ported it. I was unimpressed, it worked
well
between the same archs but was riddled with byte
order problems and
ioctl calls that were not portable.