[OpenAFS] Alternative AFS-Implementations

[FBO]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 12:10:29PM +0200, Jimmy Engelbrecht wrote:
> FBO <fbo2@gmx.net> writes:
> 
> > Hi AFS-Fans,
> 
> Hi!
> 
> > Does anyone have experience with "alternative AFS-Implementations"
> > (different from OpenAFS)?
> > What about ARLA or MS-AFS? What are the differences, advantages,
> > disadvantages, critical bugs,...
> 
> We have been running running arla in production over 2 years.
> We have now about 140 Linux-boxes running arla.
> 
> * arla does not die when you do "ls -al /afs"
> 
> * arla never crashes the kernel, if it crashes only the userdeamon dies,
>   which can just be restarted.
Very interesting. I do have 2 PCs that are unable to do a clean shutdown
(without a crash) when openafs was started before.
3 of my other PCs do not have a problem with that (same kernel, same distri,...).

> * we have expierienced better performance on some operations with arla on
>   Linux 2.4 than OpenAFS 1.2.2
That sounds interesting, too. Which operations?

> * arla's utilities (for ex. vos) does not provide all features you want, we
>   use sometimes the openafs-utilities (which are compatible) on hosts that
>   run arla.
> 
> * arla does not crash or hang the mashine when you disconnect it from the
>   network. I do not recommend openafs on laptops.
> 
> * arla does not provide a userful filerserver-environment yet. We run
>   OpenAFS.
> 
> * arla 0.35 does caching on whole files.
> 
> I do not recommend arla for Solaris yet. On Solaris we run Openafs.
> 
> Arla works fine on *BSD, Linux, and almost fine on Tru64.
Is there a WinNT-Client, too?

> > Performance and stability ist most interesting.
> > What are the best arguments for and ( I hope they don't exist :-) )
> > against OpenAFS?
> 
> Compared to what ? NFS ?
I meant "compared to other AFS-implementations"... :-)