Re: [enfs-devel] Hello world..

[Johan R. <ch...@ed...>]

Hello!

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Lee Ward wrote:

> I think your biggest problem is going to be that NFS is stateless while
> FTP is stateful. Whether you choose ENFS or something else you'll be
> faced with this problem I think. If the NFS server goes down, all the
> state you will need to keep will disappear. For instance, say the NFS
> client is reading file data and the server reboots or somebody blasts
> the nfsd and restarts it, then the client will persist in trying the
> request. When enfsd returns to service all it has to go on is the file
> handle. For NFSv2, thats 20 bytes (in enfsd) of information. For the, in
> progress, v3 that will be 42 bytes (in enfsd again). You are going to
> have to keep full pathnames for active files as well as the server and
> any leading path components for the sub-export external to the nfs
> server. An external flat-file or (g)dbm instance?

Okay. I was thinking of mounting the filesystem over the loopback
interface, so that each client acts as it's own server...

I attended a tutorial on unix network programming at last year's USENIX
conferance in Boston and got the idea that it might be a good idea to use
parts of NFS for this (ftpfs) kind of project.

I'm still in the process of formulating what it is that I want and the
best way of going about it.

I appologize for being somewhat sluggish in my response, but please bear
with me. Currently I haven't got the time that I'd like to spend on this
project (work+studies...), I will however keep in touch and will let you
know when I have given the idea more thought.

Cheers,

   // Johan

--=20
Johan Rudholm <ch...@ed...>         Systems Administrator
Tel:  +46 31 772 58 63,  Call: SM6XLV      Chalmers University of Technolog=
y
PGP fingerprint:          4D47 9C3F F1D8 8AF5 10B3  66BF 8876 17BB EBC2 970=
8
Visit me!  N57=B0 41'30''  O11=B0 58'65''