From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4f34febc0601231612g229b16d7kb2e757ec97b7b720@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:12:39 +0900
From: John Barham <jbarham@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] fuse bashing
In-Reply-To: <43D53D9F.90702@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060123170614.07D331E8C37@holo.morphisms.net>
	<43D5123E.1070001@lanl.gov>
	<3e1162e60601231231r5e95b657x99e9070d17802734@mail.gmail.com>
	<43D53D9F.90702@lanl.gov>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e49be084-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 1/24/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> 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.

How about the potential performance hit of having to issue multiple
reads for a large file (vs. a single retr in ftp, for example), or has
fcp solved that problem adequately?

> I spent about 5 years hacking on nfs,
> and I have to say 9p is a way better protocol.

Ditto for WebDAV which is incredibly verbose for something as simple
as a directory listing.

  John