From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: viewprinting processes and process oriented permissions got funded Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:10:28 -0700 Message-ID: <407D5464.4070501@namesys.com> References: <20040414094426.GK14134@nysv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20040414094426.GK14134@nysv.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_T=F6rnqvist?= Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote: >Hans Reiser wrote: > > =20 > >>I am still thinking through how we will implement views in Reiser4. >> =20 >> > >A question of grace, again, if you please. > >Does the current plugin architecture allow views to be implemented >directly or will it affect the on-disk layout in a manner which >requires mkfs? > >I'm fairly certain that it should not require mkfs, but as something >of the local Reiser4 advocate I just want to make sure :) > >BTW, the READ.ME for 2004.04.26: >d. readdir() over NFS has known problems. > >I think I may be something of a successful advocate; a friend is consideri= ng >Reiser4 for his RAIDed NFS file server, because it needs an overhaul. > >Although it's not a production system, I think his input on possible >failures would be welcome and of course some stability (no need to mkfs >a big-assed system) on the filesystem's part would be good to guarantee. > >So, basically, have you decided on when the next snapshot is due >with NFS issues fixed? ;) > >Thanks! > > =20 > nikita is the one to ask about NFS. any infrastructure required by views will be handled by creating new=20 plugins, and won't require mkfs. that is why we made the effort to=20 create new plugins. --=20 Hans