Jim Rees (firstname.lastname@example.org)
13 Aug 87 12:52:00 GMT
Actually, I like to think of it as RFS using volatile state, and NFS
using permanent state (i.e., disk). In order to permit the simple
recovery that NFS aspires to, you have to store data on disk that
will survive a failure so that a client can do correct cache
invalidation. This NFS does, and it completes all writes prior to
acknowledging a write to a client. In view of these requirements,
I feel that the term "stateless" without qualification is incorrect.
Well... I guess so, but if you take that interpretation, you could also
argue that no server is ever stateless, because the data in the files
represents state, too. In this context, when I say "server state," I
mean some information held by the server about connections with the
clients. The server "knows" that node X has file "foo" open for reading.
NFS does not keep this kind of information around, not even on disk,
except maybe as an optimization.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:38:49 GMT