From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Wladimir Mutel Message-ID: <1004035542.803113@firewall.isd.dp.ua> References: <20011025175210.BB72419A08@mail.cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:23:54 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0e247aee-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Russ Cox wrote: > Is not it bad to have centralized fileserver in Plan9 ? May be this > affects scalability ? Is there a way for Plan9 to use multiple-server > or serverless filesystem like Berkeley xFS or DEC Frangipani ? Also, > lack of local caching hurts, especially between cpu-server and > 9fs-server. > Sure, it affects scalability. But when you need to support > tens or even a hundred nodes, it doesn't matter. I don't think > we'd scale to a thousand nodes very well. But the answer to > that is probably some sort of leases and tokens to enable > more agressive caching, rather than something like xFS or > Frangipani. Be pragmatic: it's easier to maintain one Plan 9 > file server than a whole bunch of xFS or Frangipani nodes, > especially since you don't have to worry about things like > consistency or node disconnections. Berkeley has also project of storage called OceanStore, it allows decentralized multiserver storage of unlimited scalability and virtually maintenance-free storage nodes. It is a step to global transparency of storage, like Internet is global transparency of communication. Very nice thing to have in Plan9, I think.