[Removing afs3-standardization because the subject is OpenAFS specific.] On 9/1/2012 12:43 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > I believe the proactive case here would be to create an OpenAFS foundation > with the charter to work with storage hardware vendors to offer and market > storage hardware with the AFS server software pre-installed, in the same > way that NFS and CIFS servers are already embedded in the storage product > hardware offering. > > Places like Your-File-System could then offer value-added upgrades to the > base embedded OpenAFS on the storage appliance. > > I think we all get so tied up in the technical aspects sometimes we forget > that it is *sales and marketing* that keeps people buying crap like NFS > and CIFS.
End user organizations have over the last decade asked their storage vendors to integrate AFS services into the storage products they purchase. The answer has consistently been 'not interested'. Up until 2005, some storage vendors had representation on the OpenAFS Elders as a result of individual members changing employers. The perspective of these representatives was that AFS3 should be supplanted by NFSv4 and the role of OpenAFS should be to provide transition paths for a conversion. As a result, those Elders were asked to resign given the inherent conflicts of interest. The Elders have engaged in discussions with the major operating system vendors over the years as well. Those discussions inevitably broke down because AFS3 did not satisfy the needs of a First Class file system. (No Ext. Attributes, no alt data streams, no byte range locking, no mandatory locking, directory limitations, etc.) Given the current state of the protocol, the questions surrounding the AFS trademarks, the large investments in NFSv4 and CIFS, and the relatively small market of the AFS installed base, there is no interest in adding AFS3 protocol support to existing hardware storage products. Hardware vendors will only be interested in integrating a product that addresses the needs of Stanford University. Of course, that is what Your File System, Inc. is building. I have said for years that continued use of any enterprise infrastructure protocol or product requires the confidence that the technology can support a ten year window of devices. Five years backwards and five years ahead. Of course it is not possible to predict what things will look like five years from now so decisions must be made based upon having faith that the technology will continue to be supported on all required platforms over that time period. It is quite clear to me that the CIOs and CTOs of many end user organizations no longer believe that OpenAFS can provide the required functionality in five years time. Since the transition time to execute infrastructure platform changes is three to five years, the decision to begin the process of migrating is being made at an increasing number of sites. Its all about momentum. Marketing is important in that it can affect opinions that drive momentum. But in the end, what is most important is delivering the features and functionality that is deemed to be mandatory or demonstrating the ability to do so. In 2007, when Derrick Brashear and I presented OpenAFS at the Spring HEPix conference, we heard that message loud and clear from those in attendance. In my opinion, it is not necessarily too late for an OpenAFS Foundation. It is too late for an OpenAFS Foundation to market the existing implementation. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
