Network connectivity differs significantly between NFS and Samba. With CIFS/Samba, shares may participate in a DFS tree and appear to the client as a single unified tree. However, when the client actually connects to a resource, he is redirected to the IP address of the server that holds the resource, so he ends up communicating with multiple hosts. With NFS, a server mounts the remote filesystem(s) and the client communicates only with one machine. Which is OpenAFS more like? I am hoping it is more like NFS because I have to work around firewall limitations. I am hoping that I can communicate solely with the OpenAFS server, and it will in turn communicate with other servers that it has mounted. Is that the way it works?
-- Eric Robinson Director of Information Technology Physician Select Management, LLC 775.720.2082 Disclaimer - March 14, 2007 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and might not represent those of Physician Select Management (PSM) or Physician's Managed Care (PMC). Warning: Although the message sender has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, neither PSM nor PMC can accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
