[OpenAFS] the future

Lars Schimmer l.schimmer@cgv.tugraz.at
Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:53:57 +0200

Hash: SHA1

On 2012-10-01 08:34, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:

> Because you don't expose your internal group NFS/SMB share to
> collaborators in another timezone, and central IT policy won't let
> you expose the Netapp.

Thats what a VPN at network borders do already.

> AFS is the only thing besides GPFS (also from IBM) that I have ever
> heard of someone talking seriously about cross-site/cross-continent
> file sharing. (Okay, I did a remote mount of PVFS over 6000 miles,
> but that was an SC demo stunt)

With current setup and security system, no one expose their data open
to the net, everyone need VPN. If VPN is setup, why prefer OpenAFS
over other solutions?
I do know a lot of groups which do sendout pre-configured CISCO PIX to
home-office workers and remote-support folks, just to have them setup

> If you actually want to *share* it, AFS is the way to go. I think
> if we are trying to 'keep' admins and small groups that don't
> understand the value of sharing, it would be better if they *did*
> migrate to a department nfs/smb (un)share and unshare themselves
> into irrelevance.

You do not see the reality out in the wild. OpenAFS is nice, but
unsecure. No compnay with "real important data" liek VW, BOEING,..
will run OpenAFS open to the world. Access would always be behind a
VPN, if at all.
Small groups with 1-20 people do have enough other problems like no
money, no admin, no support crew. If at all, a half-time admin is
available. Mostly only external payed-by-hour support.
These underpayed folks should learn, setup and manage OpenAFS for just
1-20 people setup? If they already know howto run SMB/NFS? Who does
pay these extra amounts of work just for the very very small benefit
of OpenAFS?

> If admins and CIO's don't understand the value of having a
> filesystem that just politely *asks* for a donation, and get irate
> at some additional text in aklog & tokens output, then I think we
> all might be better served if they choose a solution like Google
> drive that's simple, easy, free, and then feeds you ads and mines
> your data for you too. Then YFS can buy some google ads and get
> them back as paying customers when the figure out what they are
> missing.

Politely asking is NOT asking on aklog. Thats something which is
accepted the first 2,3 times. Afterwards it is asked to get removed
very, very fast.
Admins and CIO do need to provide something cheap working which does
not stops people from working. And in current situation, OpenAFS is
not the answer. Sorry.
And asking on every aklog is like SPAM mails. Sort out very very fast.

And as written x times in this thread: as long as OpenAFS does not
provide any benefit ahead of other filesystem worth that cost, no one
will pay. Really. Every group has nothing to spent, no money to give
away for free.
Why should a group like mine (10 people) with ~5.000 euro a YEAR for
hard/software costs available spent money for OpenAFS if NFS/SMB is
free of cost and easier to manage/setup and OpenAFS just does not give
us any benefit?

Lars Schimmer
- --=20
- -------------------------------------------------------------
TU Graz, Institut f=FCr ComputerGraphik & WissensVisualisierung
Tel: +43 316 873-5405       E-Mail: l.schimmer@cgv.tugraz.at
Fax: +43 316 873-5402       PGP-Key-ID: 0x4A9B1723

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/