[coyotos-dev] Thoughts on (non)persistence

[Valerio Bellizzomi]

On 08/02/2005, at 11.38, James Graves wrote:

>"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 /
>persistence mechanisms.
>
>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?

This is exactly what I meant when talking about "uniform storage model".


val