On Oct 29 06:05:28, James A. Peltier wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> | On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:23 +0200, "Henning Brauer"
> | <lists-open...@bsws.de> wrote:
> | > * James A. Peltier <jpelt...@sfu.ca> [2010-10-28 20:23]:
> | > > What it offers:
> | > > Kerberos security,
> | >
> | > what again?
> | >
> | > > selectable security level (-o sec=krb5/krb5i/krb5p),
> | >
> | > ha ha ha ha
> | >
> | > > firewall friendly
> | >
> | > rrrrright
> |
> | And this huge infrastructure creation (nfsv4/Kerberos/blah blah) all
> | so
> | his users can type 'cp' and 'mv' instead of 'put' and 'get'?
> | I don't get it.
> | Also the last time I checked SFTP was supported on all the
> | platforms he listed....
> | Or did I miss something?
>
> No I cannot just put and get. Moving hundreds of gigabytes of medical
> imaging data around with FTP/SSH would be out of the question.
Yet moving hundreds of gigabytes of medical imaging data
around with NFS is OK. More specifically yet, moving them
around with NFSv4 is OK, but moving them around with NFSv3
is not. Right?
Let's stay technical: what exactly does NFSv4 do for you in your
situation that NFSv3 does not? "Kerberos security", as in "users
authenticate themselvzes"? "Firewall friendly"? How exactly is
NFSv4 more "firewall friendly" than NFSv3?
(Don't get me wrong: I want a multi-platform shared storage too.
I do it with NFSv3. You use NFSv4, Kerberos, and Samba. How exactly
is that better?)
Do you need file access or file transfer, in the sense of
Callahan's standard "NFS Illustrated" book?
Jan
