From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <052277c2fbf7baa6266ec16b1b8d253d@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:50:25 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130904172257g57bae1apbcff37de5461a604@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 - the next 20 years
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e5806444-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > * you can get the same effect by increasing the scale of your system.
> >
> > * the reason conventional systems work is not, in my opinion, because
> > the collision window is small, but because one typically doesn't do
> > conflicting edits to the same file.
> >
> > * saying that something "isn't likely" in an unquantifiable way is
> > not a recipie for success in computer science, in my experience.
> >
> > - erik
> >
>
> I don't see how any of that relates to having to do more work to
> ensure that C/R and process migration across nodes works and keeps
> things as consistent as possible.

that's a fine and sensible goal.  but for the reasons above, i don't buy this
line of reasoning.

in a plan 9 system, the only files that i can think of which many processes
have open at the same time are log files, append-only files.  just reopening
log file would solve the problem.

what is a specific case of contention you are thinking of?

i'm not sure why editor is the case that's being bandied about.  two users
don't usually edit the same file at the same time.  that case already
does not work.  and i'm not sure why one would snapshot an editing
session edit the file by other means and expect things to just work out.
(and finally, acme, for example, does not keep the original file open.
if open files are what get snapshotted, there would be not difference.)

- erik