Nate <refried.org> wrote,
> Not that I wanted to start an NFS vs AFS flamewar. Just don't insult
> AFS as being like NFS.
<sarcasm>
Trolls are a wonderful way to quell potential flamewars.
</sarcasm>
Here's the difference between AFS and NFS. NFS wasn't designed to be a
filesystem in and of itself. It was designed to provide the feel of a
local filesystem access to an existing remote filesystem by wrapping it
a network protocol. Standard UNIX filesystems, in general, do not
implement Acess Control Lists, nor to they require a user to
authenticate to any server other than the system they're on.
NFS's scope is very limited: pushing out network access to a local
filesystem to remote clients, regardless of the underlying architecture
and management of that filesystem. Sure, it tries to do some
performance enhancements, such as a limited caching scheme, but that's
about it.
Enter AFS. AFS does not have the same goals as NFS. It is an entirely
different breed of filesystem, not just a network layer on top of an
existing filesystem. With AFS, nothing is assumed, and control is
complete, and the partnership with Kerberos is a powerful one. Tools
are different, and integration and administration is initially a higher
cost. It's not a replacement of NFS over TCP+SSL, it's a completely
different system.
Back to the comment at hand: There is no insult when comparing NFS to
AFS, just a vague comparison of the functionality. Read the word
"vague" again and remember the context in which this thread started, or
rather diverted from.
Anyway, back to business.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie
http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020503/179dbc62/attachment.pgp