[3300] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Athena Disconnected Operation White Paper Draft 2.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (dryfoo@MIT.EDU)
Sat May 25 02:38:13 2002
From: dryfoo@MIT.EDU
Message-Id: <200205250638.CAA06112@thelonious.mit.edu>
To: lcs@MIT.EDU
cc: Bill Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>, source-developers@MIT.EDU, release-team@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 25 May 2002 01:26:28 EDT."
<CMM.0.90.4.1022304388.lcs@defiant.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 02:38:09 -0400
} Read-write lockers are a bigger problem. There is the technical
} challenge of doing frequent "recursive diffs". The locally cached
} version of the locker is a local filesystem, which has different
} semantics and protections from AFS.
We have one advantage with AFS, I think: that when the user is
disconnected, AFS has "lock" among its permission types. So if the user
is off-line somewhere modifying his own files, his own locker at least
could be locked to all other users who might have modification rights to
any subdirs in it.
What to do about shared project lockers I will leave to those with
pointier hats.
Another question: is there a meaningful difference between these two
situations:
-- a user is unintentionally disconnected for some reason, vs
-- the user _knows_ ahead of time they'll be disconnected, and
can take a few moments (minutes) to run some particular
clever script.
All the discussion so far seems to be eliding the two cases, but the
two users could have different needs and expectations.
-- Gary L. Dryfoos, <dryfoo@mit.edu>
Consultant, I/S Training & Publications
N42-240, 617.253-0184
