From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13224789a5f3d055ad4ec9f48e3b7d5e@9netics.com> To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:05:19 -0800 From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] FileServer grid Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9e652658-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 starting with something like /sys/src/cmd/nfs.c or ramfs.c and a setup like this: mount /stuff /n/node0 import node1 /stuff /n/node1 import node2 /stuff /n/node2 fscreate and fsopen would create or open /n/node[012]/file and fswrite would write to /n/node[012]/file. a good developer (not necessarily a superstar) could write it in a week. but this assumption -- that this would work better than if all the nodes accessed a reliable file server -- is wrong. > is it too much for a syntetic filesystem 9P based? or too few? > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM, ron minnich wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Giacomo Tesio wrote: >> >> > If a sincronization system for the grid nodes (or a sintetic filesystem >> > providing access to the grid and replicating writes among node) would >> > require more than 3 weeks of man work probably I've no chance to get this >> > solution approved. >> >> 3 weeks? I think you have a problem here. Stop now. >> >> This is a non trivial problem. At least from what I know. >> >> ron >> >>