home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-Id: <200206110109.VAA08321@localhost> From: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@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: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:08:13 -0400 Sorry these comments are so late. I'm trying to catch up on some old mail. Ironically, I'm doing this in disconnected mode. :-) lcs> Lockers are a good model because they define a chunk of (usually) lcs> network-accessible resource which can be handled by itself. Instead of lcs> thinking of which subtrees of /afs to mirror or cache locall, you can lcs> use the granularity of lockers. It's worth noting that it't not always worthwhile to bring eerythign local to the laptop. For instance, I've brought my inbox and dotfiles local, but not all of the old mail that I don't need to access regularly. In my case this was a compromise against the time and space needed to bring everythign local. Certainly there's also no need to bring the Solaris binaries local onto a linux laptop, just because they're in the same locker. lcs> We could modify named to check whether the machine is off the net, at lcs> which point it responds immediately with the canned "local map". This lcs> could implement some useful workarounds, e.g. establish localhost as an lcs> MX host for "outgoing.mit.edu", so that mailers would still be able to lcs> send to outgoing to relay their mail but in fact it would be queued lcs> locally. Your specific suggestion about making localhost an MX record won't work, since we don't run a sendmail listenter by default (one less network service to have holes). This doesn't matter for most applications, because they generally invoke sendmail directly to queue the mail. I guess netscape is the known exception, and I don't recall how evolution behaves. If all else fails I suppose we could look into starting an SMTP listener only on the localhost interface, but I don't know how easy that would be to set up. dryfoo> We have one advantage with AFS, I think: that when the user is dryfoo> disconnected, AFS has "lock" among its permission types. So if the user dryfoo> is off-line somewhere modifying his own files, his own locker at least dryfoo> could be locked to all other users who might have modification rights to dryfoo> any subdirs in it. 'lock' doesn't mean what you think it does here. It is intended for temporary locking of files to prevent multiple clients from changing the same file simultaneously. I'm pretty sure that a client's lock will be lost if the client falls off the net. Jonathon
home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |