Hi,
“Carl Appellof” writes:
> “Arthur Kreitman” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
> >
> > I would bet that DEC has patents in that area for work they developed
> > for VaxClusters
> >
> >
>
> Well, when I worked on them, VAXClusters didn’t do replication. They used
> shared storage for the most part. Although I suppose they did do some kind
> of proxy I/O for nodes that weren’t connected to the shared storage.
>
> Carl
Cannot speak as to patents, but when it comes to `replication’ you are,
er, patently wrong. This is called volume shadowing and has been around
approximately forever, although other techniques for having storage
redundancy are preferable for performance reasons if hardware permits
(other than performance, there’s no reason against shadowing cluster nodes
via regular network links – my OpenVMS cluster at home uses Ethernet for
this purpose since I’m too cheap to buy a faster interconnect).
See e.g. the article
Scott H. Davis
Design of VMS Volume Shadowing Phase II Host-based Shadowing
Digital Technical Journal 3(3) (1991).
Funny how people forget.
–
later,
Stephen
Fraunhofer-IGD | mailto:
Stephen Wolthusen | xxxxx@igd.fhg.de
Fraunhoferstr. 5 | xxxxx@acm.org
64283 Darmstadt | xxxxx@ieee.org
GERMANY | xxxxx@wolthusen.com
|
Tel +49 (0) 6151 155 539 | Fax: +49 (0) 6151 155 499
+49 (0) 172 916 9883 | +49 (0) 6245 905 366
More on the Legato saga:
EMC sped its push into the storage software market Tuesday by acquiring
backup and archiving specialist Legato in a deal valued at approximately
$1.3 billion.
Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of David J. Craig
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:27 PM
To: File Systems Developers
Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
Remember in patent disputes the only winners are the shysters - both
sides. Even in bankruptcy, the shyster judges always protect other
shysters first. Shareholders, debtors, etc. last if the shysters
couldn’t get their hands on everything. I think that judges should not
be shysters - too much of a conflict of interest in civil cases. If it
didn’t pay so well, you wouldn’t have all the TV commercials trying to
get clients for them.
----- Original Message -----
From: “Jamey Kirby”
To: “File Systems Developers”
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:38 PM
Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
> And 20 or 30 grand extra lying around.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Kreitman
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: File Systems Developers
> Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
>
> You guys have it backwards. What you want to do is come up with
> something
> original, patent it, and hope some big rich company infringes on you.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamey Kirby [mailto:xxxxx@storagecraft.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:39 PM
> To: File Systems Developers
> Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
>
>
> The boycott to make change has to start somewhere. It is not going to
be
> with the lawyers.
>
> Jamey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of David J. Craig
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:29 PM
> To: File Systems Developers
> Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
>
> That is why shysters get $400 to $1000 per hour. Even with that, it
is
> probably cheaper to pay one of them to answer your questions before
you
> spend tens of thousands of dollars in development costs. Even if it
is
> only
> a one person development, you will loose any income that could have
been
> gained pursuing something that can be sold or a contract that pays.
>
> P.S. Can the html.
>
> > “Mike Wick” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
>
> > This is not a technical question but it has implications on
technical
> > work I’ve been doing on a file systems filter driver. I was hoping
to
>
> > get feedback regarding the lawsuit filed by LEGATO against NSI. Does
> > LEGATO have a case? Will this mean no one can write a commercial
file
>
> > systems filter driver that replicates?
>
> http://www.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-21214480-0.html
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com To
> unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@congruent.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@yoshimuni.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
—
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Coda uses a local cache and keeps it synchronized with the remote file
system. It is a very similar idea, with a different perspective.
Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Carl Appellof
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:18 AM
To: File Systems Developers
Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
“Arthur Kreitman” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
>
> I would bet that DEC has patents in that area for work they developed
for
> VaxClusters
>
>
Well, when I worked on them, VAXClusters didn’t do replication. They
used
shared storage for the most part. Although I suppose they did do some
kind
of proxy I/O for nodes that weren’t connected to the shared storage.
Carl
—
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
An expert!
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Stephen D. B.
Wolthusen
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:29 AM
To: File Systems Developers
Subject: [ntfsd] Re: LEGATO v. NSI
Hi,
“Carl Appellof” writes:
> “Arthur Kreitman” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
> >
> > I would bet that DEC has patents in that area for work they
developed
> > for VaxClusters
> >
> >
>
> Well, when I worked on them, VAXClusters didn’t do replication. They
used
> shared storage for the most part. Although I suppose they did do some
kind
> of proxy I/O for nodes that weren’t connected to the shared storage.
>
> Carl
Cannot speak as to patents, but when it comes to `replication’ you are,
er, patently wrong. This is called volume shadowing and has been around
approximately forever, although other techniques for having storage
redundancy are preferable for performance reasons if hardware permits
(other than performance, there’s no reason against shadowing cluster
nodes
via regular network links – my OpenVMS cluster at home uses Ethernet
for
this purpose since I’m too cheap to buy a faster interconnect).
See e.g. the article
Scott H. Davis
Design of VMS Volume Shadowing Phase II Host-based Shadowing
Digital Technical Journal 3(3) (1991).
Funny how people forget.
–
later,
Stephen
Fraunhofer-IGD | mailto:
Stephen Wolthusen | xxxxx@igd.fhg.de
Fraunhoferstr. 5 | xxxxx@acm.org
64283 Darmstadt | xxxxx@ieee.org
GERMANY | xxxxx@wolthusen.com
|
Tel +49 (0) 6151 155 539 | Fax: +49 (0) 6151 155 499
+49 (0) 172 916 9883 | +49 (0) 6245 905 366
—
You are currently subscribed to ntfsd as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
“Stephen D. B. Wolthusen” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntfsd…
> Cannot speak as to patents, but when it comes to `replication’ you are,
> er, patently wrong. This is called volume shadowing and has been around
> approximately forever, although other techniques for having storage
> redundancy are preferable for performance reasons if hardware permits
> (other than performance, there’s no reason against shadowing cluster nodes
> via regular network links – my OpenVMS cluster at home uses Ethernet for
> this purpose since I’m too cheap to buy a faster interconnect).
>
> See e.g. the article
>
> Scott H. Davis
> Design of VMS Volume Shadowing Phase II Host-based Shadowing
> Digital Technical Journal 3(3) (1991).
>
> Funny how people forget.
You’re absolutely right! I should have remembered this, since I worked for
Scott once and remember the Volume Shadow driver.
But I don’t remember whether that driver did BLOCK based replication or FILE
based replication.
Carl