At 7:23 PM -0700 9/15/03, Adam Done wrote:
I can see good reasons to both arch. I gather openAFS is
simpler to manage than DFS but DFS has more advanced features.
Also I gather DFS is not supported on a wide rage of
server/client hardware.
RPI has used AFS for more than ten years. We were interested
in DFS in the late 1990's, but after a few years we gave up on
it. It was too much trouble and complexity. I believe that at
this point, DFS is pretty much dead.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
