From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
In-Reply-To: <20100113162339.GA24738@nibiru.local>
References: <635018e058076d45e5d6bcf01860138a@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<dd6fe68a0912220956m5fe11fe6p5f767261736a3d4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100105150340.GF21460@nibiru.local>
	<5bcb0e528c3837e94d152a7a4410db21@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<20100113162339.GA24738@nibiru.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <019DE3DC-AEAF-489A-8583-AC031FE3C073@fastmail.fm>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:14:13 +0000
To: weigelt@metux.de,
 Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Design of webfs and webcookies
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c766cb32-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


On 13 Jan 2010, at 4:23 pm, Enrico Weigelt wrote:

> * erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
>> i think you misunderstand the problem.  cookiefs' fs interface
>> is not the issue.  cookiefs' robustness when storing the cookies
>> on the fileserver in the face of multiple concurrently running
>> cookiefs' is.
>
> ah, you're talking about the situation when multiple cookiefs
> instances running on the same storage ? hmm, that's the classical
> multi-access problem ;-O
>
> but how do you get into that situation in the first place ?
> (more to the point: who starts these multiple instances ?)

Wouldn't multiple instances of cookiefs neatly provide transaction
isolation?