From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 7 14:35:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D474937B401 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.seekingfire.com (coyote.seekingfire.com [24.72.10.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ADF43F75 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tillman@seekingfire.com) Received: from blues.seekingfire.prv (blues.seekingfire.prv [192.168.23.211]) by mail.seekingfire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3156B for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 15:35:16 -0600 (CST) Received: (from tillman@localhost) by blues.seekingfire.prv (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h47Lb4e23563 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 7 May 2003 15:37:04 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 15:37:03 -0600 From: Tillman To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030507153703.A23403@seekingfire.com> References: <20030506222149.E19124@seekingfire.com> <1052331668.6547.44.camel@jake> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1052331668.6547.44.camel@jake>; from blueeskimo@gmx.net on Wed, May 07, 2003 at 02:21:08PM -0400 X-Urban-Legend: There is lots of hidden information in headers Subject: Re: AFS Server and Client X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 21:35:19 -0000 On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 02:21:08PM -0400, Adam wrote: > On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 00:21, Tillman wrote: > > Aside from features like volume management, failover, kerberos > > authentication, ease of client maintenance and intelligent client-side > > caching, you mean? ;-) > > > > I'd /love/ to see the OpenAFS server in the ports tree - the last > > messages on it that I've seen on various mailing lists seem to imply > > that it's Real Close Now. > > After reading up on AFS, I'd agree that there are many promising > features there. However, isn't NFS3 supposed to address some of these > shortcomings? You might be thinking about NFSv4 (v3 has been around for quite some time now). It'll definitely correct some of the problems in NFS (security and locking primarily), but like any NFS protocol it's aimed at workgroup sized networks. It'll also come at a cost: it's stateful, which is a change from traditional NFS. There's also an age difference: AFS has been around a long time, and so can be considered proven technology. Just not on FreeBSD :-) -T -- If any man thinks he slays, and if another thinks he is slain, neither knows the ways of truth. The Eternal in man cannot kill: the Eternal in man cannot die. Bhagavad Gita