On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 09:05:09 PM James wrote: > J. Roeleveld <joost <at> antarean.org> writes: > > AFS has caching and can survive temporary disappearance of the server. > > Excellent for low bandwidth connections. Most DFS have mechanisms to > deal with transient failures, but not as generaous on the time-scale > as AFS. I believe, if I recall correctly, these hi-latency, low bandwith > recovery mechanism keen design paramters, at least bake in the > CMU develop cycples, for AFS? > > While attractive for your situation, these features might actually > be detrimental to a hi_performance distributed cluster's needs for > a DFS?
I tend to agree. I'm not sure how up-to-date AFS is, but from re-reading the wikipedia pages, it sounds like what I need. Provided I can get it to work together with Samba. I need to allow MS Windows laptops access to the files on the remote location. > > For me, I need to be able to provide Samba filesharing on top of that > > layer on 2 different locations as I don't see the network bandwidth to > > be sufficient for normal operations. (ADSL uplinks tend to be dead slow) > > Yea, I'm not going to be testing OpenAFS for my needs, unless I read > some compelling publish data on it's applicability to high end > clusters best choice as a DFS..... I wouldn't either. > It's probably great for SETI etc etc. Doubtful :) Did you see the following wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems It contains a nice long list of various distributed, clustered,.... filesystems. I just miss an indication on how well these are still supported and on which OSs these (can) work. -- Joost
