From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:52:03 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] QTCTL? In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40711011056p2be8772dm4f061d5a401445ce@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10711010904r317f9fd6v14a87dc2f024b0b1@mail.gmail.com> <36bfc10a6570b430d295d956d832a7c2@plan9.bell-labs.com> <8ccc8ba40711010958rc144015jf0b2d285f51ba67@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10711011038y729344b4l11731b70c5785e1e@mail.gmail.com> <8ccc8ba40711011056p2be8772dm4f061d5a401445ce@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4a4a3c0-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 11/1/07, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote: > We did look at nfs v3 and lbfs before implementing op. > > nfs v3 at least tried to address latency and not just bandwidth as lbfs, > but it seemed to use more RPCs than needed for some tasks (I don=B4t reme= mber > now, but have that written down somewhere). > IIRC, NFSv4 has more lease negotiation stuff as well as compound operations= . Of course its like a 500 page spec and looks to be more of an example of what not to do IMHO... -eric