Subject: RE:

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:13:43 -0800

Mike Eisler writes:
> Dave Noveck writes:
> 
> > > I'm not sure I've ever had a customer complaint about appends not
> > > working. 
> > 
> > Alright.  We don't have to tell them to stop complaining because
> > they know that complaining is useless.  A basic protocol problem
> > like that cannot be solved in any time frame that a customer
>
> If there was a way to solve this problem in
> existing framework that NFS uses, I'd be on the bandwagon.

If there was a way to solve it within that framework, it would
already have been done, in V3 and we'd be using it now.

> > cares about.  He'll just do something else, besides using NFS,
> > I mean.
> 
> What will he use besides NFS? 

Right now, contrive to do it on local disk, somehow.  Post-process 
multiple log files to merge them or something.

> NFS fails to support a long list of esoterica from UNIX local file
> access model. Do we really have to or want to fix them all?

I don't want to support stuff that is esoterica.

The question is whether multiple processes appending to a log file
belongs in that class.  I don't think it does.  That is why people
keep trying to solve it.  The problem isn't that it is an
esoteric feature that nobody wants.  It is that it is difficult
feature to implement.

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:34:34 -0600

> keep trying to solve it.  The problem isn't that it is an

"people" refers to customers or system vendors?

-- 

- Spencer -