On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Dale Ghent wrote: > Not to sway you away from ZFS/NFS considerations, but I'd like to add > that people who in the past used DFS typically went on to replace it with > AFS. Have you considered it?
You're right, AFS is the first choice coming to mind when replacing DFS. We actually implemented an OpenAFS prototype last year and have been running it for internal use only since then. Unfortunately, like almost everything we've looked at, AFS is a step backwards from DFS. As the precursor to DFS, AFS has enough similarities to DFS to make the features it lacks almost more painful. No per file access control lists is a serious bummer. Integration with Kerberos 5 rather than the internal kaserver is still at a bit of a duct tape level, and only support DES. Having to maintain an additional repository of user/group information (pts) is a bit of a pain, while there are long-term goals to replace that with some type of LDAP integration I don't see that anytime soon. One of the most annoying things is that AFS requires integration at the kernel level, yet is not maintained by the same people that maintain the kernel. Frequently a Linux kernel upgrade will break AFS, and the developers need to scramble to release a patch or update to resolve it. While we are not currently using AFS under Solaris, based on mailing list traffic similar issues arise. One of the benefits of NFSv4 is that it is a core part of the operating system, unlikely to be lightly broken during updates. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
