[OpenAFS] openAFS vs. DFS

[Garance A Drosihn]

At 7:23 PM -0700 9/15/03, Adam Done wrote:
>I can see good reasons to both arch.  I gather openAFS is
>simpler to manage than DFS but DFS has more advanced features.
>Also I gather DFS is not supported on a wide rage of
>server/client hardware.

RPI has used AFS for more than ten years.  We were interested
in DFS in the late 1990's, but after a few years we gave up on
it.  It was too much trouble and complexity.  I believe that at
this point, DFS is pretty much dead.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih@rpi.edu