On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Robinson, Eric wrote:
Network connectivity differs significantly between NFS and Samba. With
CIFS/Samba, shares may participate in a DFS tree and appear to the
client as a single unified tree. However, when the client actually
connects to a resource, he is redirected to the IP address of the server
that holds the resource, so he ends up communicating with multiple
hosts. With NFS, a server mounts the remote filesystem(s) and the client
communicates only with one machine.
Which is OpenAFS more like? I am hoping it is more like NFS because I
Well, not really either. There would be a small bounded set of AFS servers
but typically more than one.
have to work around firewall limitations. I am hoping that I can
communicate solely with the OpenAFS server, and it will in turn
communicate with other servers that it has mounted. Is that the way it
works?
AFS servers don't mount other things and re-export. They export their own
space.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
