From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:59:48 -0800 From: Roman Shaposhnik In-reply-to: <13426df10812181926w7ef1d03bj2ad1befce75b3dc8@mail.gmail.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; delsp=yes; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <59EE20C6-0043-4517-ADDA-4BC5C4D24D74@sun.com> <13426df10812181603l56910094m7165f27179047a3a@mail.gmail.com> <8FC3CE71-0E96-4A7E-82E3-0A32722F0EFD@sun.com> <13426df10812181926w7ef1d03bj2ad1befce75b3dc8@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] 9pfuse and O_APPEND Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6a2e419e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Dec 18, 2008, at 7:26 PM, ron minnich wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> Its fun, yes. But I believe this is more of a testament to the >> statelessness >> of the NFS >> plus the fact that the "end of file" is not a well defined offset >> (unlike >> beginning of >> the file). > no, it's even worse with stateful systems. Why? Please elaborate. I can see how a trivial change to 9P's open can lead to a desired behavior of append-on-the-server. But the open is only there because 9P is stateful. If you don't have a permanent channel to your data it becomes very difficult to ask for particular processing of read/writes. All in all, I don't think I agree with your comment. Thanks, Roman.