On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are many things that would be *possible* with /proc, some of
>> them ill advised. For instance, why can't I 'mkdir /proc/n/' and have
>> it create a new process?
>
> There's an aswer to that given by Ken in the P
>> 31000/2 is about 15tb. that seems pretty reasonable these days.
>> do you know what the peak throughput is?
>
> Good point.
>
> Btw, what's the typical size for the coraid deployment?
we see everything from 1tb to 2400tb.
our most popular appliance, the sr2421,
holds 24 disks.
- erik
> To some extent, the popularity of NFS (is there any NAS box
> that talks AFS?) and Linux is one big testament to the
> power of "good enough" or "worse is better".
i really hate this meme. it doesn't mean anything.
imho, the reasons nfs is popular are mostly political and
logistical rather tha
> Fair enough. But what's the adoption overall?
Among organizations who want 10,000+ users sharing a single
(apparent) file system? I know there are organizations which
would dramatically benefit from that kind of infrastructure, who
don't have it, because they are using NFS (e.g., a university
When I use ftpfs to mount a ftp site and then bind /n/ftp to another
location. All appears to work fine in /n/ftp and in the other
location. When I type ns, I can clearly see the pipe bind for ftpfs
mounted to /n/ftp. When I unmount /n/ftp I can type ls on /n/ftp and
not see anything there. But if
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I use ftpfs to mount a ftp site and then bind /n/ftp to another
> location. All appears to work fine in /n/ftp and in the other
> location. When I type ns, I can clearly see the pipe bind for ftpfs
> mounted to /n/ftp. Whe
I forgot to mention when I bind /n/ftp I was really binding
/n/ftp/directory to another location.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I use ftpfs to mount a ftp site and then bind /n/ftp to another
> location. All appears to work fine in /n/ftp and in the o
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot to mention when I bind /n/ftp I was really binding
> /n/ftp/directory to another location.
>
if I understand it correctly, the reference to the server is still
there even if you don't see /n/ftp anymore.
iru
>
> if I understand it correctly, the reference to the server is still
> there even if you don't see /n/ftp anymore.
>
> iru
yes, the reference is the other location. there is no
heirarchy of mounts/binds. tthere is no "master"
that if removed will remove the whole thing.
they are simply refer
I guess what confuses me when dealing with something like ftpfs, is
that it seems to behave differently than other types of binds.
Examples I've used in the past involve simple binds like this.
I create 4 directories, let's say dir1, dir2, dir3, dir4.
Inside dir1 and dir2 I have files.
I can then:
oh yeah, it seems to do a pipe bind to the other location, only when
binding to the root. If I bind to /n/ftp/directory, it doesn't show
the pipe bind in ns.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess what confuses me when dealing with something like ftpfs, is
ns is showing you the best name it has
for the resource in question. if you did
bind /n/ftp/dir /n/tmp,
then it can't tell you that you did
mount '#s/ftp' /n/tmp
because that's not accurate--'#s/ftp' would
get you /n/ftp, not /n/ftp/dir.
so it shows you /n/ftp/dir, because that
is the name that w
On Dec 6, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Dave Eckhardt wrote:
More globally, if the high adoption rate of NFS is an argument
in favor of its architecture,
It is most definitely not. At least in my opinion. However, adoption
is the only thing that I know of that can potentially justify excessive
*engineerin
On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:27 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
To some extent, the popularity of NFS (is there any NAS box
that talks AFS?) and Linux is one big testament to the
power of "good enough" or "worse is better".
i really hate this meme. it doesn't mean anything.
It depends on the point of view
> This one is easy: Plan 9 (and 9P in particular) doesn't have to have
> the redeeming quality of high adoption rate in order to justify
> an excessive engineering complexity. It is not complex at all.
> It is small and elegant. Whether that compactness and elegance
> sometimes prevents it from bei
On Sat Dec 6 19:05:07 EST 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh, come on! ;-) You sound like Bjarne now, complaining
> that James Gosling, hijacked OOP with tons of corporate
i don't recall having written a competitor to nfs.
> And yes, I tend to agree with its main premise, that mediocracy
> usua
i don't understand this thread. the "moral" equivalent? surely you
mean "functional" or "rough" or "approximate" or some other adjective,
not "moral". the phrase "moral equivalent" originates in the "moral
equivalent of war". using it in this context is wrong, misguided,
maybe punishable.
the o
...
> surely you mean "functional" or "rough" or "approximate" or some other
> adjective, not "moral".
...
> -rob
Another adjective would make the topic of discussion too specific,
before ever entering the discussion. But without any adjective, the
topic is too obviously incomplete.
;)
akumar
On Dec 6, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
i don't understand this thread. the "moral" equivalent? surely you
mean "functional" or "rough" or "approximate" or some other adjective,
not "moral".
Isn't "moral equivalent of an X" an idiomatic expression that goes
beyond
the original use of it
19 matches
Mail list logo
