From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] hardware support for the fs kernel
Message-ID: <20030314070657.A24866@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20030313095950.S24866@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <940a30e216cbf845003a6cfc1f96bc43@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <940a30e216cbf845003a6cfc1f96bc43@plan9.bell-labs.com>; from Russ Cox on Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:45:49AM -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:06:58 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7ff6ccc0-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:45:49AM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
> 
> > Unless my reading of the Fossil documentation deceives me, fossil
> > gets its own namespace to serve, in which case it could also
> 
> I don't know what you mean by this, but I think you're confused.
> As far as file service is concerned, fossil is conceptually 
> identical to the worm fs but with long file names.
> 
I'm confused.  I'll take a closer look before making a bigger fool of
myself.

> 
> It's a throwaway program, meaning I can't wait to throw it away.
> 
_I_ won't be needing srvold9p anymore.  I had three fileservers,
2ed, 3ed and 3.5ed.  Now I have two, both 3.5ed, serving 2ed, 3ed
and 4ed on two hosts.  I can recommend others do the same if they
have the same type of need, but it may be still early days.

++L