3 ms·
NFS grossly violates POSIX file system semantics, so it's better to use something like 9P/Styx, instead. Unix systems really aren't good at abstracting local a
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
NFS grossly violates POSIX file system semantics, so it's better to use something like 9P/Styx, instead.
Unix systems really aren't good at abstracting local and remote mounts and binds into a singular resource, but the parent poster's scenario was implied to be a local user hotplug, which is what device managers largely do (if even that, udev these days just maintains the /dev/disk/* symlinks and handles query requests for the hardware database).
- pjc50 11y agoit's better to use something like 9P/Styx, instead Who does this, though? Are there reliable adoption numbers? NFS semantics are wrong in well-known, familiar ways and it ships everywhere, making it still quite popular.
- riskable 11y agoThe real problem with NFS is that NFSv3 is easy to implement but insecure and has scalability issues (e.g. users can be in no more than 16 secondary groups) while NFSv4 is complicated and requires a complete Kerberos infrastructure (which is more complicated than rocket science!) to utilize in a way that works around the limitations of NFSv3. There's much better network file systems but because of many factors (boat/complexity being the biggest) their adoption is minimal. Once you move beyond single-user/simple read/write permissions there's really no easy to avoid complexity. It's just the nature of the beast that is sharing files over the network in a way that appears native to the user.