Coda File System

Re: Coda client, 32-bit userland on a 64-bit kernel?

From: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:32:17 +0200
Hi Greg,

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 08:10:37AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > x86 <-> amd64 is not the only example. Linux ABI is available on
> > several *BSD kernels, what is wrong with providing a single client userspace
> > for all those systems? Our Coda client is self-contained and does not
> > depend on any additional libraries, why do we have to maintain 5 instanses
> > of it - while one x86-Linux instance is capable of running on all 5 platforms
> > unmodified?..
> But it isn't.  Either you have to just build coda native, or all those
> other systems have to emulate Linux down to the kernel/venus level.  I
> could mamake the same claim - why doesn't Linux run NetBSD programs?

The systems can not emulate kernel/venus level by definition - as there is
yet no (architecture-independent) definition of such a thing,
and that was also the point you mentioned.

One thing is easy to overlook [for hardcore *nix wizards],
namely a difference between a user system and a development system
suitable for producing reusable binaries.
These two are far from being the same and I am trying to avoid
setting up and maintaining (updating and administrating) 4 of 5
development systems. This makes sence - possibly for too few people
to be able to compensate for the development effort needed otherwise.

> When you say 'maintain', do you just mean 'compile binaries from
> source'?  This really does not seem hard.  Check out pkgsrc, which

This does not seem hard, but in fact it is, if you are producing
binaries for other machines than the development one, and not necessarily
set up exactly the same.

A saved cost of 4 extra development machines (even virtual ones)
and of keeping 5 almost identical build environments in synch 
might be sufficient for some improvements in Coda protocols definition.

Never mind.

Received on 2007-07-11 09:34:10