Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!evax!utacfd!letni!texsun!convex!convex.COM
From: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.large
Subject: Re: Files > 4MB
Message-ID: <108780@convex.convex.com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 14:50:14 GMT
References: <1990Nov11.225759.866@ceres.physics.uiowa.edu> <1990Nov12.173130.16222@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <5epo02S6e6i501@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Sender: usenet@convex.com
Reply-To: patrick@convex.COM (Patrick F. McGehearty)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 19

In article <5epo02S6e6i501@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> littauer@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Tom Littauer) writes:
>Yes, it's true. Until Sun defines the architectural change, us vendors of
>big face the ugly choice between limits on NFS file size and non-standard
>implementations.

I agree.  Increasing the NFS file size limits requires either Sun to
extend its architecture or for several "large system" vendors to get
together and agree on a "large-file" extension.  I would prefer Sun
to bless any architecture extension to reduce the likelihood of
varying (and buggy) implementations.  However, large system vendors do not
have a lot of influence with Sun (small unit volumes, lower fees) as
compared to low-unit-cost-high-volume customers.  If users who had both
workstations and large systems started requesting large-file support
in NFS, maybe it would get more attention.

- Patrick McGehearty

Disclaimer: The above is my personal opinion and does not represent
the policies of Convex Computer Corporation.