David Boyes <[email protected]> writes: > Wait a second: I think I see the disconnect here. I don't want the > configuration service to be unique to AFS. I originally said "a" > configuration service. That could be DHCP options or TFTP or something > similar or whatever you choose. You can use Puppet if you want; I just > object to assuming that local files are the only way.
Configuration files are the most ubiquitous method of configuration of services available today on UNIX, and therefore essentially all configuration management systems already know how to deal with them. By using them, AFS is staying in the predictable mainstream of configuration. I would not prejudge a generalized service for configuration that would replace configuration files, but I'm skeptical that something like that would be successful. I'd be happy to be surprised, however. But AFS is not where that sort of innovation should happen, IMO. We have enough to do in handling innovation in distributed file systems. If someone wants to tackle the generalized configuration problem and come up with a better solution, get general traction in the world, get support for it in multiple other services, and then present it as an option for AFS once it's widely supported and tested in other contexts, I'd certainly be interested. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
