Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!davet%tp4@rand-unix.arpa
From: davet%tp4@rand-unix.arpa (Dave Truesdell)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: re: contributed RFS
Message-ID: <1841@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 18:23:16 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1841
Posted: Wed Jan 22 18:23:16 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 04:45:11 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 25

> From: terryl%tekcrl.uucp@BRL.ARPA
> Date: 18 Jan 86 22:42:40 GMT
>
> >                                                       I take
> > issue with the claim that one does not want "find / -print"
> > to cross over to remote file systems as it traverses the
> > directory.  To the contrary, that is the whole point of RFS
> > transparency.
>
>      Ah, but probably not. Suppose two systems were linked by an RFS.
> Then, a "find / -print" would go into an infinite loop traversing both
> systems' file systems. Thus, you don't want find to cross over remote
> file systems. This (and similar) arguments are the same for symbolic
> links.

  Sun's NFS seems to handle this sanely.  Perhaps the solution is to keep the
semantics of the filesystem the same. (i.e. a tree, and not a cyclic graph.)
The system manager would have the responsability of keeping the remote mounts
from causing a loop. (A commercial system would have to make sure of this, by
enforcing some constraints.)

  Symbolic links are, as always, a special case.

  I agree with Doug Gwyn, the "remoteness" of the remote filesystems should
be transparent.