Brian,
There is one disadvantage with using AFP rather than wide open
(potentially
insecure) NFS mounts. Remote login via "ssh" into a client computer
won't by default mount the
user's AFP home directory. While it is possible to manually
mount the AFP home directory it may preclude other users from using
the client
computer from the console. This feature of AFP is due to user-specific
mounting of the remote disk on the client computer. I assume the same
feature would apply to Kerberized NFS mounts, but I haven't tried it.
This limitation of AFP requires some thought when using idle client
computers
as compute servers. We're using the Mac Server Xgrid service, along
with the freely available "GridStuffer.app" application to make
submission of "batch" jobs
to all our Macs relatively easy.
Axel
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Brian Mark wrote:
Francis,
From your response and others to my question about OS X server 10.5,
AFP seems to be the preferred networking protocol over NFS. Yes, in
our case the RAID is connected to a G5 (via firewire 800 - which
provides surprisingly good transfer rates BTW) that is running OS X
server 10.5 . I'll try AFP for the user home directories.
Thanks,
Brian
Axel T. Brunger
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology
Stanford University
Web: http://atbweb.stanford.edu
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +1 650-736-1031
Fax: +1 650-745-1463
