From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10812191202x639c689t5b8270ad3bb02631@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:02:33 -0800 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <41C79A6A-3A01-4AD3-A73C-BFDA28439FE5@sun.com> <4bdece4cd73b46e7fe957da67fa215c6@plan9.bell-labs.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9pfuse and O_APPEND Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a89f3b8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Two questions: > 1. But before I ask this one: I don't deny that per-file append-only > is *extremely* useful. My question is a different one: what is > the danger of N clients accesing the file X in append-only mode > and M clients accesing it in random access mode? Could you, > please, give a concrete scenario? there are no problems if you don't care about the integrity of the data. ron