Adam Megacz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > and many of its features depend on the fact that all file access is
> > via the fileserver.
>
> I agree.
>
> I'm starting to come around to the conclusion that the on-disk format
> exists primarily for obf
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Adam Megacz wrote:
I'm starting to come around to the conclusion that the on-disk format
exists primarily for obfuscational purposes -- that is, it is the most
effective way to discourage people from locally modifying shared files.
If you look at it that way, it makes a lot
Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and many of its features depend on the fact that all file access is
> via the fileserver.
I agree.
I'm starting to come around to the conclusion that the on-disk format
exists primarily for obfuscational purposes -- that is, it is the most
effectiv
On Monday, October 09, 2006 04:37:11 PM -0700 Adam Megacz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Adam Megacz wrote:
You're not the only one drooling over this possibility. But it won't
help much with the current namei/AFSIDat layout
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Adam Megacz wrote:
>
>> You're not the only one drooling over this possibility. But it won't
>> help much with the current namei/AFSIDat layout.
>
> What problem do you have with it? It emulates open-by-inode-number
> with some
don't feel the need to say anything here, so I won't.
not needing licenses for restore means nothing about having the
software
be able to run on a current machine.
ie: can you restore on a box 5-10 years from now when you can't
find the
software and can't get it to run on any modern os/
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 01:55:17PM -0500, John Hascall wrote:
>
> > not needing licenses for restore means nothing about having the software
> > be able to run on a current machine.
>
> > ie: can you restore on a box 5-10 years from now when you can't find the
> > software and can't get it to ru
> not needing licenses for restore means nothing about having the software
> be able to run on a current machine.
> ie: can you restore on a box 5-10 years from now when you can't find the
> software and can't get it to run on any modern os/hardware? no.
What kind of dipstick would wait 5-10 yea
One solution I have used for contracted military embedded firmware is to
require that the sources and build tree be placed in escrow.
BTW the archive timeframe is many decades, not years.
tedc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Derrick J Bra
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote:
not needing licenses for restore means nothing about having the software
be able to run on a current machine.
ie: can you restore on a box 5-10 years from now when you can't find the
software and can't get it to run on any modern os/hardware? no.
You'r
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 14:10 -0400, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote:
>
> >> TiBS doesnÿÿt require a license key for restores to ensure that our
> >> customers
> >> have access to their data at all times.
>
> []
>
> >> We only license the backup function and our m
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote:
TiBS doesnÿÿt require a license key for restores to ensure that our customers
have access to their data at all times.
[]
We only license the backup function and our model is built on
processing power to scale with your needs.
Great. But that doesn't m
> Teradactyl generally avoids chiming in on subjects such as these but since we
> were named specifically on this thread it seems justified to comment. It’s
> true, Teradactyl is a small company with a customer base that is virtually
> all
> large government and educational entities. We full
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Adam Megacz wrote:
You're not the only one drooling over this possibility. But it won't
help much with the current namei/AFSIDat layout.
What problem do you have with it? It emulates open-by-inode-number with
some metadata in the mode bits, basically.
That's oversimplif
"chas williams - CONTRACTOR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> afs's namei based filesystem could provide a more familiar layout
> of the files. however, i suspect the designers choose the current
> structure to avoid creating single directories with huge numbers of
> files. most filesystems dont ha
> AFS traditionally doesn't "replace" a filesystem, it "augments" it.
Well, it sort of does a bit of both. I wish it did a bit less of the
former.
> And then, well, zfs would be pretty nifty for AFS.
You're not the only one drooling over this possibility. But it won't
help much with the curre
Well said.
tedc
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Ron Croonenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello all,
>
> Is there a set of rpm's available to install the OpenAFS client on FC5
> x86-64 ? Or do I have to compile that myself ?
We don't (yet) have an FC5 x86-64 build machine set up. Derrick
and JeffreyA are working on one, so hopefully by 1
Teradactyl generally avoids chiming in on subjects such as these but since we
were named specifically on this thread it seems justified to comment. It’s
true, Teradactyl is a small company with a customer base that is virtually all
large government and educational entities. We fully support th
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> had responded to Adam Megacz:
> From: Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: openafs-info@openafs.org
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] why afs backup is so poorly supported (Was: Backup
> AFS
20 matches
Mail list logo
