Glew, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The same line of reasoning applies to a number of other areas. AFS
> solves no problems that cannot be solved other ways, using local disks,
> NFS, etc., albeit requiring more human intervention.
I want to see the exact same terabyte file system on 20,000 machines, all
of which are actively using it at the same time.
How do I do this with NFS?
> Because AFS doesn't solve the whole problem in a performing manner, and
> because the whole problem can be solved without AFS; because AFS has a
> lot of sysadmin overhead, and because it's a hassle to split disk space
> up into separate pools of AFS and NFS; AFS goes lower and lower on the
> priority list until it falls off the ZBB.
AFS requires considerably less sysadmin overhead than a similar quantity
of data in NFS in my experience. Location-independence and
user-transparent data moves means that we never have to schedule downtime
and can upgrade to new disk arrays without clients even *noticing*. Try
doing that with NFS.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
