On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Steven Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think there are a few people out there who would at least play with > EFS if it were easy to set up. But no one has approached me > personally in at least a year. And THAT is precisely the problem -- EFS will *never* be easy to setup, primarily because it makes far too many assumptions about what "well managed infrastructure" means, assumptions that I have seen virtually NONE of the large IT shops meet in a satisfactory way. EFS will be easy to set up when setting up a new, scalable Enterprise architecture is easy. IOW: probably never. For example, you can NOT share NFSv3 widely unless you have your uid/gid house in order, and my current employer is the ONLY large shop I have ever worked in that did this well. YOUR current employer (and one of my previous ones) never did, and never will, and yet you are still assuming this basic condition has been met. After 3 years of struggling to make EFS easy to setup, I've done about all I can at this point. The level of automation that is available is tremendous, and the only feedback I've ever received on the process amounts to: "Gee, it's still kinda hard..." I am really convinced at this point, that as an open source product, EFS is not going to acquire any new users, simply because it requires well managed core infrastructure, and the few places that NEED the scale that EFS supports either can't provide what EFS needs, or they have already solved these problems to their satisfaction and aren't interested in EFS. There's one exception to this rule, and I'm working there. Again :-P _______________________________________________ EFS-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev
