Subject: Re: have there been any "recent" resolver fixes?
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/27/2000 14:01:33
On Sat, 27 May 2000, Greg A. Woods wrote:
# No, that's not the point. However given that I've more or less rejected
# by now the very notion of RPC in the first place I'm not likely to be
# swayed by a new implementation of it, no matter how much easier it is to
# use than Sun's "popular" incarnation of RPC.
After watching the ping-pong match between the two of you, may I
hazard a guess that you also consider NFS to be overblown for what it
does? After all, NFS uses RPC.
It strikes me that NFS is actually a much lighter-weight protocol than
any of the other proposed/implemented remote file access protocols,
in spite of its perceived evils. It also admittedly doesn't try to
do as much (compared to, say, RFS, which, last I looked, tries to
open remote devices remotely instead of locally -- occasionally very
But if there's a protocol for remote file access which is:
I would very much like to know of it.
# system). The basic idea of a remote procedure call may be such an
# abstraction, but as yet I've not seen any implementation even remotely
# light-weight or simple enough to meet my stated requirements. Solaris
# doors certainly doesn't seem to fit any better than the original Sun RPC
I'm skeptical to see yet another file type which is something that would
probably be as well served by a domain socket or a named pipe. After
all, we're doing not much more than machine:process to machine:process
I recall at one point that portals used to exist (portals were kind
of like pipe/sockets with ACLs attached to them, IIRC). Those were short-
lived because nobody was able to properly implement them.
BSD: Scalability Does Matter.