On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Troy Benjegerdes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Having migrated from NFSv3 to AFS (and then OpenAFS), I'd have to say that > NFS may be free, but it doesn't really fall into the 'functional' category. > But this was several years ago, so there might have been some magic that > happened with NFS I haven't seen yet. > > Can anyone who has experience migrating to/from OpenAFS from/to anything > else in the last 2-3 years please comment? If there's really something > free, functional, and already included then I'd like to know what the > heck it is. There is nothing that does everything AFS does that I am aware of. But most of the things AFS does that others don't do are not "user visible" features, but features that make it easier to administrate and run. There is also the question of whether you need the things AFS does. For a small group in which you trust root on every machine, AFS can easily be replaced by NFS. ( v3 or v4 depending on your level of paranoia ). For larger sites, there is really nothing that comes close, but the underlying cost drivers that make AFS a functional solution are going away. In particular the need for a shared executable repository, local disk is cheap and software install is a much more solved problem than it used to be. AFS is acceptable at sharing read-only data if you don't need high bandwidth, but hopeless as a read/write source for large scale computing. Secure shared home directories is the last hope of AFS and NFS V4 mostly does that but in a more painful way ( but also supported by vendors... ) - Booker C. Bense _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
