As a first approximation - assuming identical namespaces - this
multiplier 9p server (9plier? multi9plier?) could be trivially(?)
useful, used with recover(4) on all connections and with an
independent synchronization mechanism, in case states would fall out
of sync.
Furthermore I would not rule out usefulness if the namespaces are not
identical, though I think a higher level model (over 9p) would need to
be considered to built anything useful.
Thanks for your insight!
On 5/28/22, Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting idea!
>
> This assumes the downstream servers have identical namespace hierarchy;
> right?
>
> State management could be messy or impossible unless some sort of
> transaction structure is imposed on the {walk, [open/create,
> read/write]|[stat/wstat], clunk} sequences, where the server that
> replies to walk first, gets that transaction.
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 9:04 AM <fge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Has anybody considered (or maybe even implemented) a 9p server to
>> multiply incoming 9p messages to 2 or more 9p servers?
>> Maybe with 2 different strategies for responding to the original request?
>> 1. respond as soon as at least 1 response from one of the 9p servers
>> is received,
>> 2. respond only after all responses had been received.
>> thanks!
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T769854fafd2b7d35-M97ea1f3fe6561095767a222e
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
