From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <43D53D9F.90702@lanl.gov>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:33:35 -0700
From: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] fuse bashing
References: <20060123170614.07D331E8C37@holo.morphisms.net>	<43D5123E.1070001@lanl.gov>
	<3e1162e60601231231r5e95b657x99e9070d17802734@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60601231231r5e95b657x99e9070d17802734@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e44e8b4a-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

David Leimbach wrote:

> I don't know too much about the limitations of 9P... and this choir
> isn't likely to sing them [no offense but it is called 9fans after
> all]

The big complaints I know of so far on 9P are

- there is no posix file locking (sorry, but people want it) although 
the 'only allow one open at a time' is a pretty damned good substitute

- no ACLs (I'm convinced that the stat and wstat could be trivially
	extended to support this --- 9p2000.acl)

- doesn't fit linux vfs semantics too well (just a joke, son, but true
    too -- sometimes you have to fit a good thing onto a broken thing)

That's about all I've hit so far. I spent about 5 years hacking on nfs, 
and I have to say 9p is a way better protocol.

ron