On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:35 AM Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Thus I think that when one would modify the code, in large part the > > code is common, and where it isn't at least the "switch" is visible in > > there. Therefore I'm confident that the `fileserver` is still a > > viable solution. :) > > I won't really dispute that it is viable at present, but it's pretty clear > to me that it's no longer a *recommended* solution, and I don't really > understand your attachment to it. Is this just because you continue to > investigate running a simple fileserver without the bosserver and > demand-attach has more moving parts in that respect?
Exactly. I want to simplify the OpenAFS deployment as much as possible. (Especially since the simpler it is, the better the chance I actually understand what happens with my data.) I see OpenAFS as a viable solution for a WAN-enabled NAS, that one could quickly deploy (the "server" part) in a VM (or even a container), and just use it. (I'm really amazed that to day no other WAN-enabled NAS solution exists, especially one that allows user-defined ACL's, and one that works both on Linux and Windows...) However as it stands today OpenAFS is geared towards large and static deployments, and less for "experimental" ones. I would really love If I managed to "put together" a very lightweight VM that has just the bare minimum services and moving parts. (And this is really achievable once one understands the "underlying" of managing a file server.) Ciprian. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info