At 11:24 AM 11/22/2005, David Thompson wrote:
Read carefully. I attended an NFSv4 presentation at a technical conference, and found out that some of the NFSv4 features were added specifically to compete with afs; however, the implementation is in the spec as "optional", and, in fact, none of the existing NFSv4 implementations have them.
Exactly. And as I have said here before, I believe the biggest thing people seem to gloss over in this debate is AFS's volume location service providing global name space via a distributed manner. The "client" makes the choice of which server to hit, spreading the network load out, somewhat like the world wide web. You don't have a lot of clients hitting one master server for the tree. As far as I know, this will never be part of NFSv4s spec. I think this is the trump card for AFS over NFS.
But let's not lose perspective here. AFS's intended use is large scale, and to be used over the wide area network. As time progresses the distinction between wide area, local area, and server room is losing its meaning because bandwidth is so much better these days. Clearly, because of the bandwidth increase, AFS feels the pressure from less ambitious protocols since their net can be cast much wider. But again, AFS solves a number of other items that keeps it at the top of my list.
Rodney Rodney M. Dyer Windows Systems Programmer Mosaic Computing Group William States Lee College of Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.coe.uncc.edu/~rmdyer Phone: (704)687-3518 Help Desk Line: (704)687-3150 FAX: (704)687-2352 Office: Cameron Applied Research Building, Room 232 _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
