Daniel Clark wrote: > On 8/2/06, Skylar Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> With this system list, I can see where AFS might be better. You might >> also check NFSv4, though. > > NFSv4 is even worse in terms of platform support. There isn't even > very good support for it in recent-ish GNU/Linux distributions, and > nothing before AIX 5.3+ supports it. Not to mention that the doc that > I (mostly couldn't) find was incomplete and often didn't mesh with > current reality. The one exception to this was AIX 5.3; IBM has a nice > Redbook on NFSv4 for that platform. Sun in theory supports it well, > but I couldn't find a "how to set up a NFSv4 client on Solaris" type > document anywhere.
It is pretty new. When I looked at it, I was mostly looking at FreeBSD server/Red Hat client support. There was a kernel patch for the FreeBSD server that worked fairly well in 5-RELEASE, and the Red Hat client could mount it. >> > If you can point me to a site describing how to set up Kerberized >> > NFSv3 across all of these platforms, I'd love to see it. >> >> I know the Linux one here: >> >> http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/linux/ > > The URL would seem to indicate that this actually references NFS > version *4* :-) >> > Also I'm not a Kerberized NFSv3 expert, but it would be hard for me to >> > believe that it would solve *all* of the numerous NFSv3 security >> > problems. >> > >> >> Where I work, we're moving off AFS to Kerberized NFS because AFS >> can be >> >> difficult to work with. >> > >> > You must have limited platform support requirements :-) >> >> Indeed. In fact, I come from a FreeBSD environment where AFS isn't even >> an option. ;) > > Doesn't ARLA work fine for *BSD? Isn't ARLA just the client? All our file servers ran FreeBSD (a bit of religion/tradition there that predated me), so we'd need a server implementation as well. It appears that the AFS project on FreeBSD is pretty much dead. >> > I've also admined both, and have had far more problems with NFSv3, >> > esp. with things sort-of-but-not-really working in difficult-to-debug >> > ways, weird performance issues, and the automounter code, which is >> > different for each platform, can work in inconsistant ways, and often >> > requires a reboot of the machine to fix. >> >> I find that sticking with server platforms with known-good NFS >> implementations (i.e. not Linux) and UDP is a good approach. FreeBSD and >> Solaris have both done well in my experience. The Linux NFS server >> implementation has given no end of problems. > > We use Data OnTAP, which in theory is supposed to have one of the/the > best NFS implementations available. All of the real problems are > client-side. > That's mainly been my experience too. I've also had problems with firewalls improperly fragmenting large NFS packets, which is why UDP helps. -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
