From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 From: "Russ Cox" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011025175210.BB72419A08@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:52:00 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0d6af77c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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. Russ