Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!usenix!jsq
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.4: Real-time Extensions
Message-ID: <544@usenix.ORG>
Date: 25 Sep 90 23:09:38 GMT
References: <539@usenix.ORG> <541@usenix.ORG> <543@usenix.ORG>
Sender: jsq@usenix.ORG
Organization: IR
Lines: 37
Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)

In article <543@usenix.ORG> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <541@usenix.ORG> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >In the filesystem abstraction, you open a filename in one stage. You
> >can't do anything between initiating the open and finding out whether or
> >not it succeeds. This just doesn't match reality, and it places a huge
> >restriction on programs that want to do something else while they
> >communicate.
> Programs that want to do two things at once should use explicit parallelism,
> e.g. some sort of threads facility.  In every case I've seen, this yielded
> vastly superior code, with clearer structure and better error handling.

I agree that programs that want to do two things at once should use
threads. However, a program that sends out several connection requests
is *not*, in fact, doing several things at once. open() forces it into
an unrealistic local model; surely you agree that this is not a good
semantic match for what actually goes on.

That example shows what goes wrong when locality disappears. As another
example, NFS (as it is currently implemented) shows what goes wrong when
reliability disappears. Have you ever run ``df'' on a Sun, only to have
it hang and lock up your terminal? Your process is stuck in kernel mode,
waiting for an NFS server that may be flooded with requests or may have
crashed. Programs that use the filesystem for IPC assume that their
files won't just disappear; this isn't true under NFS.

I am not saying that networked filesystems are automatically a bad
thing. Quite the contrary: a distributed filesystem with caching and
other forms of replication can easily be local and reliable, and I'll
gladly see standard UNIX make provisions for it. But something that's
not local, or not reliable, or not static, is also not necessarily
appropriate for the filesystem.

---Dan

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 132