On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Phillip Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >
First, in general, I don't have any major objection to not using rsync -- I was just making sure you are aware of the current state of vos dump/restore. > The issue is going to come down to finding a directory replication mechanism > that has full support for OpenAFS ACLs. That was one of the reasons we > used vos dump/restore in VMS, but I would rather spend a week extending > rsync to support OpenAFS, than live with the limitations of vos for this > particular functionality. Yes, ACLs are a pain (in AFS, and, I suspect, in NFSv4 -- I have never heard of anyone trying to use ACLs in NFS-pre-v4, but there might be some out there). The fact that the replication system would use the filesystem rather than the server directly is a bit of a concern wrt scalability, however. Also, as you mention, the hybrid domains (i.e., NFS and AFS) _would_ be simpler if there is only one replication mechanism. BTW, you haven't mentioned Lustre, but that's very definitely in my mind as we look at this. Steven _______________________________________________ EFS-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev
