*** Spam *** [OpenAFS] Why Arla?
Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:15:48 -0500
On Sunday, December 04, 2005 09:08:16 AM -0700 Kim Kimball <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> When AFS was still solely a proprietary product of Transarc/IBM there was
> no open source.
> Arla was implementing at least the AFS client when no client source was
> openly available.
> I expect there's more going on, and don't know what the differences in
> focus are right now.
Well, as Russ noted, Arla's client architecture is considerably different
from that of OpenAFS. Because of this difference and because almost all of
the code was developed independently, Arla and OpenAFS will tend to have
different bugs. They'll also gain new features at different times, though
neither consistently gains them first.
There tends to be some difference in platform focus, largely based on what
the primary contributors to each project either prefer to use or are paid
to support. Arla tends to provide more effective support for the *BSD
systems; OpenAFS probably provides better support for some of the
proprietary systems, including Windows, and supports a larger number of
them. Linux support is likely about the same for both packages.
Both packages are implementations of the same set of network protocols, and
they do interoperate (they have to -- Arla doesn't currently include a
production-quality server; there was server work going on but I don't
believe it's been touched in some time, and I don't know if they ship it at
present). On UNIX systems they try to support the same system call
interfaces. The core developers on the two projects are in pretty close
communication; they read each others' mailing lists, contribute code, and
get together once or twice a year to work on significant protocol changes,
interoperability issues, and so on.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <email@example.com>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA