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" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <F82C3E5D-D4C2-402A-948B-B2DBA766A6EC@sun.com>
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>
	<dd6fe68a0812190023h282af5bar6b1358d451dd45e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<F82C3E5D-D4C2-402A-948B-B2DBA766A6EC@sun.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 <rvs@sun.com> 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