Re: NFS alternative
* D-Man (dsh8290@rit.edu) spake thusly:
...
>
> Now suppose just the right packets are lost and the RPC call ends up
> matching a different, existant, procedure that doesn't have the
> intended effect <grin> ... sounds like it would be a good idea to
> make NFS over TCP stable :-).
Well, RPC has its own error correction so if a right packet is
lost it will be re-transmitted. Or RPC call will time out and
return error (d'oh! remote RPC call. Automated ATM machine).
The difference is that this is handled by application-level (if
you consider RPC to be in application layer) code, not by transport
layer.
I imagine implementing NFS over TCP would involve a re-design of
RPC state machine and a serious re-write of all related code, and
it ain't exactly broken as it is, so... (given all the things that
could [theoretically] go wrong with NFS, it is surprisingly stable).
> Can I use NFS-root-over-TCP for one of the boxes (I'll have 2, the
> other I'll leave at "regular" UDP as a "control" system)?
There are other networked file systems out there, like Coda, more modern
and arguably better than NFS. If you only need to support linux, why not
use one of them? Or [e]nbd?
Dima
--
E-mail dmaziuk at bmrb dot wisc dot edu (@work) or at crosswinds dot net (@home)
http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/descript/gpgkey.dmaziuk.ascii -- GnuPG 1.0.4 public key
I'm going to exit now since you don't want me to replace the printcap. If you
change your mind later, run -- magicfilter config script
Reply to: