Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ucbvax!mtxinu!shore From: shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: (was slashes, now NFS devices) Message-ID: <1991Mar2.024914.14530@mtxinu.COM> Date: 2 Mar 91 02:49:14 GMT References: <15236@smoke.brl.mil> <123382@uunet.UU.NET> <1991Feb22.141910.17013@decuac.dec.com> Reply-To: shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley Lines: 20 In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >The proper (ahem/IMHBCO) approach to this is just another device type >in the file system (it could either be totally new, or just some sort >of new use of a pre-allocated major/minor) which means "I am a remote >device". The Goddess knows that I am NO fan of CMU's RFS, but their naming conventions provide a simple facility for doing this. Arbitrary mount points are not permitted, and remote files are referred to as something like /../remotehost/thisdir/thatdir/filename (yup, /.. and / are different directories). So, /../remotehost/dev/rmt0 refers to the tape drive on the remote host and provides access to remote devices without having to create a shell on the remote. I still prefer that a remote filesystem allow for arbitrary mount points. -- Software longa, hardware brevis Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore