I assume nobody of you is running an actual Osx server ? I mean the upgrade to a full server version of the commonly distributed normal Osx releases ?
I have not done it yet but I do think many of the issues mentioned regarding NFS/NIS could be addressed there. Regarding the missing macpro upgrades I expect to see new machines with thunderbolt connectivity in the next 4 months. And I will buy my third macpro then to run it as a true server. Jürgen Sent from my iPad On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:21, "Peter Keller" <pkel...@globalphasing.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 01:54 -0700, James Stroud wrote: >> On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nat Echols wrote: >>> The real difficulty is integrating Macs into a >>> Linux-centric environment, for example configuring NFS, NIS, etc. >> >> That's because NFS and NIS are antiquities left over from the days of >> mainframes. Distributed file systems and user information databases >> are designed for an environment of many workers and few machines, when >> the typical graphics workstation cost $50,000. These days, we argue >> whether to spend an extra $200 on a $500 computer. We have moved to a >> new paradigm: many workers with many more machines, with each machine >> having essentially mainframe levels of storage and computing power. > > Technically there is something in what you say as a pattern for > day-to-day work (for some people, although not all), but I think that > describing the debate in terms of modern vs. antiquated is missing the > point completely. The real difference between local vs. centralised > storage is to do with responsibility for the hardware and the data that > it contains. > > Local workstation storage is OK for the following kinds of cases: > > (i) the data that are stored locally have no value, so it doesn't matter > if they are lost (either through hardware failure, misbehaving software > or accidental deletion). > > (ii) the user has the expertise and the time to set up and maintain a > strategy for recovering data that are lost from local disks > > (iii) the institution that the user works for allows the user to include > data on local workstation disks in the institution's regular backup > operations > > When none of these apply, there is a real, contemporary case for using > something like NFS, where the storage is centrally maintained and backed > up. The cost of storage has fallen of course, but what that means is > that the real questions now are about the value of the data. In some > fields, you could store your entire career's data on a few USB memory > sticks, but I doubt that many people would want to do that without > having made other copies somewhere else, and the same applies to local > workstation storage too :-). > > There are other considerations in favour of connecting a workstation to > networked services: if you use more than one machine it can be an > incredible pain to be constantly moving data around from one to the > other, and to keep track of what the authoritative versions are. Having > independent, local user id's and passwords on every workstation can also > cause difficulties. I could go on.... > >> In other words, instead of NFS, you should run git. > > This is simply not an option for many crystallographers, who do not have > a background in software development or data management. Advocating and > supporting git (or indeed any content/version management system) for > those kind of users is a losing battle: they see it as an unnecessary > complication to their daily work, and will avoid using it as far as they > can. > > Regards, > Peter. > > -- > Peter Keller Tel.: +44 (0)1223 353033 > Global Phasing Ltd., Fax.: +44 (0)1223 366889 > Sheraton House, > Castle Park, > Cambridge CB3 0AX > United Kingdom
