On Mar 3, 2006, at 10:11 PM, John Bass wrote:
Hi,
I hope everyone doesn't mind if I repeat a question. One of the
few responses I did get said I should be more complete in asking my
question.
My boss is trying to choose one distributed file system from NFS
and MS-DFS and so on, from my feeling, AFS sounds like the best
choice, it is secure and is being used by many large institutes,
such as Harvard, MIT, NASA, Stanford, etc. Actually
GrandCentral.org says they use it, I cant tell for sure if that
means the whole place, or one department, or a couple of people in
a lab.
A comparison between those three file systems would be highly unfair.
First, because we (the people on the list) wouldn't be that
objective ;-) and second, because they're very different and neither
of them will solve all of your file providing problems in your
organization.
What features you're defining as important and which you'll never
going to need is up to you.
Keep in mind - no matter how you and/or your boss will decide - that
AFS is a _distributed_ file system.
It does start to make sense if you have more file servers.
It is highly scalable from one fileserver (which is kinda trivial) to
a complete distributed cell with servers placed all over the world.
You can choose any level of distribution in between.
...
Anybody can see that some of very smart people made and use AFS,
but how can an overworked person like me convince my also
overworked boss that we should spend the money and time necessary
to learn, deploy, train, and support AFS enterprize-wide?
This is something for you to decide...
It will definitely cost you some money and time.
Horst
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
