[coyotos-dev] Thoughts on (non)persistence
ansible at xnet.com
Tue Feb 8 12:38:44 EST 2005
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.org> wrote:
> Then you aren't solving the right problem. I wasn't asking for
> consistency here. I was asking for a means for a server that manages its
> own consistency to recover state after it resumes. Even if it is not
> done transparently, we still need a means for per-process *explicit*
> state recovery.
So hopefully the big win here is to have the OS provide good mechanisms
for processes to recover their own state. And because they are
standard, and always available, hopefully the application writers will
use them in preference to creating their own state recovery /
This will hopefully be a better situation than having all application
writers create their own recovery mechanisms on top of the filesystem
(or a database). Even though the filesystem is the most common
persistence mechanism, it doesn't provide any structure, so we have a
variety of configuration file formats, for example.
Is this correct?
More information about the coyotos-dev