[Info-vax] Current VMS engineering quality, was: Re: What's VMS up to these

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2012-03-17 05.14, Paul Sture wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:58:03 -0700, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-16 17.49, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> Despite the fact that they have radically different source code and
>>> implementation? I think not.
>>
>> *Yes* Despite different source code. This is not a "bug" in the source
>> code. This is an effect of the semantics of the system. It is this way
>> by design, not accident.
>>
>
> Is the NFS specification at fault then?  I remember someone here making
> the comment several years ago that when you dig deep into the NFS RFCs
> you can find conflicting requirements.

I don't think I'd ever call it "at fault". It's the way it is.
Why do people try to "solve" this? Just accept it as facts. Unix and NFS 
are not rock solid, fault tolerant systems, no matter what Michael 
Kraemer tries to imply.
They were never design with that in mind, or for such kind of purpose.

They work. Most of the time fairly seamlessly, cheap and good enough. 
And that is what people are paying for.

If you really need fault tolerant systems, high availability, good data 
integrity, and so on. You should probably shop around a little more, and 
be prepared to pay a lot more.

	Johnny