Re: OpenAFS for Fedora 13
ya, nfs4 does support a lot of that, but even just using stardard unix
acls and rsync should do much of that, usually the difficulty of
supporting modules, etc means those capabilities end up elsewhere over
time or done a different way.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Scott <djscott(a)mit.edu> wrote:
Hi,
As far as I know, these are the main differences between AFS and NFS:
NFS has little/no security (Although I think V4 does?). AFS integrates
with Kerberos (And hopefully soon with LDAP) so works well with
centralised user management.
AFS allows for multiple redundant servers and filesystem snapshots
which makes it more reliable.
As you say, it is distributed. You can share your files with the whole
world or no-one.
AFS has a very good caching mechanism.
AFS has ACLs, more fine-grained than Unix file permissions.
That's all I can think of at the moment. :) Some of these features
might well be present in the latest versions of NFS.
Dan
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:53, solarflow99 <solarflow99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> i just wondered why someone would need AFS? it sounds like a
> distributed NFS? I wonder what scenario would need it.
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> Yeah, apperently CVS just didn't want to cooperate with me and wouldn't
>> update the new F-13 directories. Learn something everyday, right?
>>
>> Dan, the OpenAFS packages are built and should hit testing during the
>> next push.
>>
>> Jack
>> --
>> Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu>
>> Linux Czar, OIT Campus Linux Services
>> Office of Information Technology, NC State University
>> GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4 EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89
>>
>