On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:30:00PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > >>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Matthew> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Viral wrote: > >> Has anyone used the Andrew File System (AFS) for a cluster ? > >> Its already packaged for debian, and sounds good. > >> > >> How does it compare to NFS ? > > Matthew> AFS is a more secure, high performance alternative to > Matthew> NFS. > > I assume that every UN*X administrator worth his/her salt have been taught > that > NFS is a absolute NO-NO on the Internet (or at least should be avoided at all > cost :). > > How does AFS stand in all this? I know it needs kerberos, but that's about > all I > know simply because AFS haven't been (easily?) available to Linux.. Is it now?
AFS was designed for WAN use. It uses a local cache directory for files that are being used. Enough local disk, and a tuned cache directory are important to speed and stability. AFS had used only krb4, but there were ports to krb5 (from nrl.gov), and now with openAFS, they are 'mainstream'. I'd take a serious look at AFS if you want clustering and/or WAN filesystems. Tim -- Tim Sailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Information Technology Division Brookhaven National Laboratory (631) 344-3001
