On Monday 18 August 2003 03:45 am, Hein Roehrig wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes: > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 05:51:12PM +0200, Hein Roehrig wrote: > >> Ideally, each workstation would become a AFS fileserver for a few user > >> volumes. > > > > Why do you want to do that? It makes your cell a lot more vulnerable > > because the server keys need to be on each client. What are you trying > > to accomplish by making clients a server? > > Save $$$ for a fileserver... In our current setup there is no central > big fileserver and users tend to have their home on "their" > workstation so that the NFS automount most of the time just does a > bind mount and gives local fs performance. The obvious downside of > this approach is that (total) disk failures tend to destroy a day's > worth of work...
I had thought of the possibility of using lustre (www.lustre.org) for my /vicexx filesystems. I have no idea about the usability of lustre itself, let alone the possibility of afs on top of it. It looked promising because of a thread I saw in the archives that suggested that it is possible to use NAS boxes as /vicexx over nfs. Obviously, I haven't gotten this far as I'm just getting a handle on installing openafs for the first time. But I am, too, trying to think of ways to harness the hundreds of gigs out there that we can't use on workstations with more disk space than they need for the OS. -Ben _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
