On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:32:11PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 05:14:53PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

J. Bruce Fields wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write 
a POSIX-only distributed filesystem.

What exactly do you mean by "POSIX-only"?

Don't bother supporting attributes, file modes, and other details not 
supported by POSIX.  The prime example being NFSv4, which is larded down 
with Windows features.

I am sympathetic....  Cutting those out may still leave you with
something pretty complicated, though.

Far less complicated than NFSv4.1 though (which is easy :))

One would hope so.

quoted

quoted

NFSv4.1 adds to the fun, by throwing interoperability completely out the 
window.

What parts are you worried about in particular?

I'm not worried; I'm stating facts as they exist today (draft 13):

NFS v4.1 does something completely without precedent in the history of NFS: 
 the specification is defined such that interoperability is -impossible- to 
guarantee.

pNFS permits private and unspecified layout types.  This means it is 
impossible to guarantee that one NFSv4.1 implementation will be able to 
talk another NFSv4.1 implementation.

No, servers are required to support ordinary nfs operations to the
metadata server.

At least, that's the way it was last I heard, which was a while ago.  I
agree that it'd stink (for any number of reasons) if you ever *had* to
get a layout to access some file.

Was that your main concern?

--b.