"Peter Lister, Cranfield Computer Centre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> No. And, speaking as an AFS site, I don't want this. HTTP and FTP
are much
> more suitable protocols, and since Kerberos authentication will be
within H
TTP
> before long (I hope), the one remaining reason for using AFS, that
of
> authentication and access control, will no longer be relevant.
>
What about replication of data, load balancing, and caching? I like
the fact
that if one vice server goes down, I'm not completely hosed since
there's
most likely another vice server with the same information that I can
access
transparently, and probably a copy in my local cache if I've just
recently
fetched it.
> May I ask why you think this is a good thing? There are not that
many sites
> using AFS (compared to the number of HTTP servers already out
there), and i
t
> seems daft to put effort into a feature which won't be used a great
deal. I
'm
> sure that a very high proportion of AFS users have WWW servers, and
as they
> all use Kerberos, setting up Kerberised HTTP should be easy.
>
Authentication isn't the only reason for using AFS.
Suppose there were a pervasive, universal file system with AFS like
properties. Many of the current hard problems, like security, caching
and replication would instantly become "solved" problems. Things like
"ismap" could even be done without servers, by executing code on the
clients written in something like safe-tcl.
Unfortunately we don't have such a file system, and aren't likely to
since all of the potential candidates are proprietary, including AFS.
The well known "only do things once" principle suggests that large
kludges in the clients to take advantage of limited opportunities are
probably a bad idea; especially given the current trend toward making
servers more and more intelligent and not just passive deliverers of
files.
--------
Sarr Blumson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: +1 313 764 0253 FAX: +1 313 763 4434
CITI, University of Michigan, 519 W William, Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
