Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> The problem, Jeff, is that you have not quite gotten over the antiquated
> notion of a "site" in which a central administrator exerts complete
> control over all the services and all the clients.
Jeff:
I don't believe that any service provider has complete control over
On Sunday, January 29, 2006 06:13:29 PM -0800 Jeffrey Altman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Megacz wrote:
I argue that, in the post-Transarc era, there are a large number of
situations where OpenAFS is useful for which no coherent/meaningful
definition of "site" exists ("cell", of course,
Adam Megacz wrote:
> I argue that, in the post-Transarc era, there are a large number of
> situations where OpenAFS is useful for which no coherent/meaningful
> definition of "site" exists ("cell", of course, is still well-defined).
For 99% of users, they install OpenAFS to access the data in one
On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:19 , Adam Megacz wrote:
I think the confusion comes from the fact that AFS was originally a
commercial software program that you had to pay a huge amount of money
for. Therefore, every user had exactly one "site" -- the organization
that paid for his/her copy. It was ext
[ As a side note, I finally got this whole thing working by creating the ]
[ bogus AFSDB entry mentioned earlier. But I'd like to continue this ]
[ discussion because I think the use case I've set up is a very valuable ]
[ one. I'm currently working on a detailed guide on how to set up
