[OpenAFS] Re: MS Dfs....

Phil.Moore@msdw.com Phil.Moore@msdw.com
Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:40:47 -0500 (EST)

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Brown <Brian.Brown@emergent-it.com> writes:

Brian> ... Another thing to note is that Dfs from MS has NO
Brian> REPLICATION! It is up to the administrator of the tree to make
Brian> sure any "folder" supported by multiple smb shares are
Brian> synchronized. You can get all sorts of nasty inconsistencies
Brian> between files. The only thing I ever thought is was useful for
Brian> was backing up Windows boxes by creating tree full of
Brian> administrative shares!

Brian> Another point that was mentioned by someone was that you still
Brian> have to know what server is the "root" server to attach to - if
Brian> that machine goes down then you have no tree.

Microsloth's choice of product name has led to a lot of wasted effort.
An attempt to compare Dfs with either DFS or AFS is really an apples
vs. oranges comparison.

Dfs is just a namespace manager, not a filesystem.  A much better
comparison would be with automounters, for example amd.  This is
really the kind of functionality that Dfs brings to an NT environment;
the ability to manage the top level namespace, underneath which you
still have the same old crappy filesystem technology that MS has been
pushing all along.