> Kevin Bowling <kevin.bowling(a)kev009.com>
> > I guess alternatively, what was interesting or neat, about RFS, if
> > anything? And what was bad?
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 07:49:17AM -0600,
> Good: Stateful implementation, remote devices worked.
Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
I'd argue that stateful is really hard to get
right when machines panic
or reboot. Maybe you can do it on the client but how does one save all
that state on the server when the server crashes?
NFS seems simple in hindsight but like a lot of things, getting to that
simple wasn't chance, it was designed to be stateless because nobody
had a way to save the state in any reasonable way.
I won't disagree with you.
I remember that stateful vs. stateless was one of the big technical
debates of the time, and I remember that (my impression of) the general
feeling was that stateful was better but much harder to do / get right.
(Again, I don't want to start another long thread over this, especially
as I don't really remember any more than what I just wrote.)
So we can downgrade "stateful" from "good" to "different"
it go at that. :-)