Dan Pritts wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:38:31AM -0500, Joe Buehler wrote:
- AFS storage is organized into volumes, attached to one or more mount
points under the /afs tree. These volumes can be moved from server
to server while they are in use. This is great when you have to
take down a machine, or you run out of space on it. The users never
notice.
This can also be considered a disadvantage. When using AFS, you are
forced to manage your storage the AFS way. Files are effectively not
stored natively on the filesystem, and cannot be accessed via some other
method, and must be backed up via afs-specific methods.
It works pretty well, but as an NFSv4 presenter put it, NFS is a network
filesystem - with AFS you have to swallow the whale of all the other AFS
stuff.
Which is kind of a good thing.
I mean, in AFS-land, the semantics for file access of a file available
in AFS are the same for all users of that file. With NFS, you have the
choice of accessing the file locally on the fileserver, or over the
network via NFS. And, I'd argue that's bad.
Really, they are two different beasts. AFS is an entire distributed
system for file storage, authentication, and access control. NFS(even
v4) is simply a way of serving files that are on a particular host.
-rob
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
