Hello Andy,
There was a bit in your post I find puzzling:
> Do I blame AFS? Well, yes I do: if AFS servers were available at reasonable
> cost for LINUX, I could consider running them on "PCs stuffed full of
> disks",
> at 1/5th the disk cost of the best prices reported to this list.
> Because of AFS port status and pricing, it's restrictedto running
> on relatively expensive server disks (and/or the AFS licence cost
> overwhelms the disk price cost).
I am told by our sales reptile that licenses for AFS servers running on
Linux or NT are half the price of "standard" UNIX AFS server licenses.
Now whether that's reasonable is debatable... Our poor university finds
all AFS licensing outrageously expensive, but 50% of outrageously
expensive is not quite as bad as 100% :-)
As far as I can see, AFS 3.6 is fully ported to Linux (RH6.x, with
recent 2.2 series kernel and glibc2.1), server and client.
I'm even going to deploy one as soon as I get around to do the
shopping...
Can you please tell me what I am missing here? I must be stupid or something.
--
Atro Tossavainen (Mr.) | The Institute of Biotechnology at the
Systems Analyst | University of Helsinki, Finland, employs
+358-9-19158939 | me, but my opinions are my own.
< URL : http : / / www . iki . fi / atro . tossavainen / >
