On 12 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.
I would not argue with the above.
However, one benefit that we as a site were hoping to get from AFS
seems not to be quite as good as we had thought: replication of
volumes.
Unless I am missing something, one can only replicate read-only copies
of volumes. That is quite a restriction.
Or am I wrong?
Just to give me a flavour of what I might possibly be missing,
would anyone care to (briefly) summarise their own strategy regarding,
or use of, AFS volume replication?
I should add that we are lagging/lingering on 3.4a, which I fully realise
is far from being the latest-and-greatest release.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
