I'm thinking more of situations where you want to access the filesystem
data for two different access methods, say, local and NFS or NFS and SMB.
others have basically said "don't do that" and they have good reasons,
however, in many situations (typically small installations) it's
reasonable and e
On Wednesday, November 23, 2005 04:50:26 PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
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, a
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Cells are demarcations of authorization boundaries. If your Bangalore
and New York offices are both controlled by the same authorities then
they should not be separate cells.
What
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:50:26PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
structure. Please don't suggest changing this if you don't understand how
it affects the streaming vs. seeking performance of operations. The fact
that AFS stores data in a serialized fo
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:50:26PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> structure. Please don't suggest changing this if you don't understand how
> it affects the streaming vs. seeking performance of operations. The fact
> that AFS stores data in a serialized format in managable chunks is a
> *HU
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>> Cells are demarcations of authorization boundaries. If your Bangalore
>> and New York offices are both controlled by the same authorities then
>> they should not be separate cells.
>>
>> What you want to happen in this c
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Chaskiel M Grundman wrote:
You can't do it between non-cooperating cells because the resulting namespace
would end up not being consistent from client to client. So much for a global
filesystem.
Yes, I'm talking about not only cooperating cells, but where there's a
sing
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Cells are demarcations of authorization boundaries. If your Bangalore
and New York offices are both controlled by the same authorities then
they should not be separate cells.
What you want to happen in this case is for your volumes to be migrated
fr
--On Wednesday, November 23, 2005 05:04:35 PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
but if you go down this path long enough to its logical end you wind up
not liking the /afs/ convention very much...
What are the alternatives? Who gets to decide what content gets what
globally unique path?
You c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Consider if you have:
>
> /afs/newyork.cell/home/horst
>
> And then you get sent to the bangalore office for an extended period of
> time and now your home cell is /afs/bangalore.cell. There are ways to
> deal with this, but if you go down this path long enough to its
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Horst Birthelmer wrote:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 8:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know why the AFS community continues to support this convention
which breaks location independence. *shrug*.
Okay, "support" was a bad cho
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
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-specif
) 341-4216
> -Original Message-
> From: Derek Atkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:22 AM
> To: Neulinger, Nathan
> Cc: openafs-info@openafs.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Re: afs vs nfs
>
> "Neulinger, Nathan" <[EMAIL
"Neulinger, Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Something as simple as having an alternative namei that would look the
> same down below, but would have the top level directory be the RW volume
> id corresponding to whatever data is being stored.
Um, the top-level directory (well, two top-level
EMAIL PROTECTED]
23/11/2005 20:05
To
Joe Buehler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: afs vs
nfs
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
> poin
> > 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.
> >
> >
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
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 y
On Nov 22, 2005, at 8:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know why the AFS community continues to support this
convention which breaks location independence. *shrug*.
Okay, "support" was a bad choice of words, why its supported should
be pr
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I don't know why the AFS community continues to support this convention
> > which breaks location independence. *shrug*.
>
> Okay, "support" was a bad choice of words, why its supported should be
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know why the AFS community continues to support this convention
which breaks location independence. *shrug*.
Okay, "support" was a bad choice of words, why its supported should be
pretty obvious. It'd still be nice to see some alternativ
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Joe Buehler wrote:
- AFS has a single namespace: the content of /afs is the same on all
machines (or under whatever drive letter(s) you pick for Windows).
The biggest win to me over NFS is a single global namespace which is
*location independent*. The location independ
Noel Yap wrote:
> Does anyone have an _up-to-date_ site comparing AFS and NFS?
> Searching has turned up lots of old ones.
You seem to be getting some rather flip responses so I will chime
in with this:
- AFS has a single namespace: the content of /afs is the same on all
machines (or under what
23 matches
Mail list logo
