is cache-only-prefixes an nnpfs limitation?

[Adam Megacz]

Tomas Olsson <tol at stacken.kth.se> writes:
> Yup, the nnpfs implementation and protocol does limit things. It will get
> less limiting, but I don't see us implementing completely free byte range
> fetching.

Well, as long as it's eventually moving towards the point where it can
fetch arbitrary blocks with some reasonably small blocksize, that's
probably good enough.

> AFAIK, w2k nnpfs works very well for demos and benchmarks, but it does have
> threading issues. Needs some work to be fit for production use.

Are there likely to be any data corruption, crashes, or hangs (due
solely to nnpfs)?  Or merely performance issues?

> If you happen to write up a little libnnpfs or so, I'm _very_ interested.

Would you throw rotten vegetables at me if it happened to appear in
the form of a native interface for Java code?  Perhaps I shouldn't
have mentioned this. ;)

> What do you have in mind?

Something sort of like a cross between coda and sfs, but with a heavy
emphasis on simplicity over performance.  And the ability to tunnel
over HTTP and DNS as last resorts.

  - a

-- 
PGP/GPG: 5C9F F366 C9CF 2145 E770  B1B8 EFB1 462D A146 C380