chas williams - CONTRACTOR <[email protected]> writes: > unfortunately afs meets your first requirement -- afs works -- most of > the time.
Not for me. This is a reality check. There's a reason why people are putting *so much work* into 1.6.1 as opposed to working on longer-term priorities and improvements. It's because 1.6.0 *doesn't work* for a lot of people, and 1.4.14 isn't much better. > the "breaking callbacks on unlink" is yet another drop in this bucket of > non-deterministic behavior. as andrew said, a user asked him why it > sometimes worked one way and sometimes another. while not as serious as > the idledead problem, it still leads to questions in people's minds. See, here's the thing: no one is suffering production outages from this. Yes, it's one of the many things, like the lack of cross-directory hard links, lack of device file support, and per-file ACLs, that is non-POSIX and weird about AFS. But it's how AFS has worked for forever, and all of us with existing infrastructures deployed on AFS are not suffering from this problem. So this is simply not a problem of the type that I'm talking about. If AFS were working for me, then discussing what to do in corner cases where historic AFS behavior diverges from what happens on other file systems is possibly an interesting thing to focus on. Improving things like this is a way to grow the AFS community. I get that. But that isn't the situation that we're in right now. The software has to work within its own set of semantics first. So, from my perspective, doing anything about this problem puts me into one of two cases: either an AFS semantic that has been there for as long as Stanford has been running AFS changes on me and I have to wonder if anything I don't know about is going to break and trust people who say that it shouldn't matter, when I already have serious reliability and stability issues, or the source gains a new option. And a new option, particularly this sort of option, might improve life for the one person who asked for this to be configurable (if anyone's really asking), while making life a little bit worse and a little bit more complicated and a little bit less reliable for everyone else who's using OpenAFS. So no, this is not something I want. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
