At QC we use both NFS and AFS. AFS is good for read-more, write-less volumes like software packages and configuration information. We use NFS for homedirs and workspace.
Compared to setting up NFS AFS is a bit more work. :-) I've heard of some interesting applications of AFS but I don't think it is particularly well suited for use as an offline web cache, at least not without several other missing pieces. -Deke On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: > On Dec 17, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > > AFS really wasn't meant for online/offline operation. It was really meant > > to bond together sites connected with slow, unreliable leased lines. The > > lines would go up and down but rarely remained disconnected for extended > > lengths of time. > > Additionally, AFS is a royal PITA to set up, requiring at least three servers > for the critical infrastructure. Also, AFS at some point apparently changed > from caching whole files to caching file blocks, so your cache may not include > a single whole file, depending on usage patterns of the filesystem. > > We keep looking at AFS as a possible replacement for NFS (we're looking for > security, accountability and reliability), but every time we start probing > AFS, it seems we're better off just dealing with NFS's failings than > contorting our entire network around AFS. > > Gregory > > -- > Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > OpenPGP Key ID: EAF4844B keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu > > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
