Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.arch Subject: Re: Magic Cookies and File Systems Message-ID: <23050@lanl.ARPA> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 16:19:36 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.23050 Posted: Fri Mar 8 16:19:36 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:37:23 EST References: <917@sjuvax.UUCP> <538@rlgvax.UUCP> <190@u1100s.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 25 > [ does this really belong in net.arch? ] Yes, it pertains to the archetecture of operating systems. There is no other network forum for this discussion and I don't know how to make one. > It really burns me the way some message passing, locking, > and semaphore systems use a globally administered pool of names (or > worse yet, numbers!!) for the names of entities. The file system directory > structure is the ONLY logical place for global names of ANY kind to reside. This assumes that the shared resources are global, that processes that don't share resources are willing to put up with the overhead of having this capability in the file interface, and that the designer agrees with your religious conviction that the file system should be the only global entity. SOME information about shared resources needs to in the system just as SOME I/O interface must be in the system. But the place for rarely used or very sophisticated features is at some level higher than the system kernal. > IF SOMETHING NEEDS A NAME, PUT IT IN THE FILE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And therby slow the file system down for ALL users whether they use the additional global naming capibility or not. J. Giles