From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Jan 4 21:29:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA03953 for isp-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 21:29:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp) Received: from onyx.atipa.com (user7320@ns.atipa.com [208.128.22.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA03936 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 21:29:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@atipa.com) Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 1018); 5 Jan 1998 05:35:52 -0000 Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 22:35:52 -0700 (MST) From: Atipa X-Sender: freebsd@dot.ishiboo.com To: "James D. Butt" cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Luis_E=2E_Mu=F1oz=22?= , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [fbsd-isp] Designing for a very large ISP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk For a client/workstation environment, NFS is really cool. For an ISP, I do not see any place it would be _required_ or recommended unless you were maintaining user shell space, which most places don't do. It adds lots of network and CPU overhead, and a considerable risk, so it is best suited for a "trusted" or secure environment, like behind a firewall, where it doesn't get hit by the outside world. Them maintenance is fairly simple. If you can figure out serial networking, NFS is a breeze! :) Kevin On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, James D. Butt wrote: > > Nor do I. I tend to dislike NFS on an ISP core :) > > It scares me to death... I know that we will have to do it very soon > though.... I can not think of any other solution for some situations... > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > James D. Butt 'J.D.' > Network Engineer Voice 319-557-8463 > Network Operations Center Fax 319-557-9771 > MidWest Communications, Inc. Pager 319-557-6347 > 241 Main St. noc@mwci.net > Dubuque, IA 52001 jbutt@mwci.net > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >