JM Ibanez wrote: > My main qualm about VFS magic to make remote filesystems look local is > that it makes users forget that the filesystem is remote-- which means > that the code has to do all this black magic to make sure that the > remote filesystem acts local. I mean, especially with FTP or anything > over the Internet, you'd probably be better off *knowing* that the > filesystem is remote, because having the VFS (i.e. either through any > userspace magic or through some FS modules) hide that from you might be > dangerous. For example, what if you write a file into an FTP server > exposed as a local filesystem and the connectivity between you and the > server goes down? At least with an FTP client you know that you're > dealing with something remote and you know the limitations of the > protocol, etc. If the VFS hides that from you, then IMHO you might lose > data.
Note that the Samba or NFS mounts face similar issues - and they do have ways of dealing with that. The main difference to consider with FTP-as-filesystem is speed and interactivity - since it will usually be used over a WAN link (aka: Internet) rather than LAN. -- reply-to: a n d y @ n e o t i t a n s . c o m -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
