Eric Sorenson wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Atom Powers wrote:
>
>> I didn't see AFS mentioned yet. My, admittedly incomplete,
>> understanding of afs is that it provides a single namespace (directory
>> tree) to all clients but the files themselves may be stored on a local
>> or remote server; a bit like Microsoft DFS.
>>
>> Would this not unify the storage while maintaining local access speeds
>> for files created locally, and still allow any host/client the ability
>> to access any file on any server?
>
>
> You really don't want to make every server a fileserver in AFS though,
> the way the OP requested. File servers are special in AFS in that you
> have to carefully (and manually) manage backup copies of volumes so
> there's always n+1; if a volume with no backup copies goes away the
> whole cell comes to a screeching halt.
You don't have to. The advantage of AFS is that is uses a local disk as
cache. And it can work in offline mode. Though, I don't know it's
limits in doing that. It might be RO when offline.
Moose! care to comment? :)
--
END OF LINE
--MCP
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
