[OpenAFS] Re: afs vs nfs
Sandesh V Chopdekar
sandesh_vc@in.ibm.com
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 20:51:08 +0530
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 005496BB652570C2_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> This can also be considered a disadvantage. When using AFS, you are
> forced to manage your storage the AFS way. Files are effectively not
> stored natively on the filesystem, and cannot be accessed via some other
> method, and must be backed up via afs-specific methods.
Namei does stores files natively on the local filesystem, and those files
can be accessed from userland. Its still complex, but nevertheless.
> It works pretty well, but as an NFSv4 presenter put it, NFS is a network
> filesystem - with AFS you have to swallow the whale of all the other AFS
> stuff.
If you need only share files, use NFS.
NFSv4 is trying to incorporate AFS like features, and in that process
NFS is becoming complex too. So if one wants those features, there
would be additional configuration.
Most of the new features that NFSv4 boasts are not implemented fully
on any major OS. They are still very much in specs only. Most of
the OS have those features in a nascent stage - read unsuitable for
production, and might not run well with your current configuration.
So if one needs features like replication, global namespace etc,
use AFS, NFS is still years behind AFS in enterprise features
(despite the tremendous amount of investment being done in NFS,
seems some of this money goes in spreading FUD about AFS too )
-
Sandesh
Opinions expressed in this mail are my own, and not of my employer.
Dan Pritts <danno@internet2.edu>
Sent by: openafs-info-admin@openafs.org
23/11/2005 20:05
To
Joe Buehler <jbuehler@spirentcom.com>
cc
openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: afs vs nfs
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:38:31AM -0500, Joe Buehler wrote:
> - AFS storage is organized into volumes, attached to one or more mount
> points under the /afs tree. These volumes can be moved from server
> to server while they are in use. This is great when you have to
> take down a machine, or you run out of space on it. The users never
> notice.
This can also be considered a disadvantage. When using AFS, you are
forced to manage your storage the AFS way. Files are effectively not
stored natively on the filesystem, and cannot be accessed via some other
method, and must be backed up via afs-specific methods.
It works pretty well, but as an NFSv4 presenter put it, NFS is a network
filesystem - with AFS you have to swallow the whale of all the other AFS
stuff.
danno
--
dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2
734/352-4953 office 734/834-7224 mobile
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
--=_alternative 005496BB652570C2_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
<br><font size=2><tt>> This can also be considered a disadvantage. When
using AFS, you are<br>
> forced to manage your storage the AFS way. Files are effectively
not<br>
> stored natively on the filesystem, and cannot be accessed via some
other<br>
> method, and must be backed up via afs-specific methods.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Namei does stores files natively on the local filesystem,
and those files </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>can be accessed from userland. Its still complex,
but nevertheless.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>> It works pretty well, but as an NFSv4 presenter
put it, NFS is a network<br>
> filesystem - with AFS you have to swallow the whale of all the other
AFS<br>
> stuff.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>If you need only share files, use NFS.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> <br>
NFSv4 is trying to incorporate AFS like features, and in that process </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> NFS is becoming complex too. So if one wants
those features, there</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> would be additional configuration. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Most of the new features that NFSv4 boasts
are not implemented fully</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> on any major OS. They are still very much in
specs only. Most of </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> the OS have those features in a nascent stage
- read unsuitable for </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> production, and might not run well with your
current configuration. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>So if one needs features like replication, global
namespace etc,</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>use AFS, NFS is still years behind AFS in enterprise
features</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>(despite the tremendous amount of investment being
done in NFS,</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> seems some of this money goes in spreading FUD
about AFS too )</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> -<br>
Sandesh </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Opinions expressed in this mail
are my own, and not of my employer.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Dan Pritts <danno@internet2.edu></b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: openafs-info-admin@openafs.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">23/11/2005 20:05</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Joe Buehler <jbuehler@spirentcom.com></font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">openafs-info@openafs.org</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [OpenAFS] Re: afs vs
nfs</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:38:31AM -0500, Joe Buehler
wrote:<br>
> - AFS storage is organized into volumes, attached to one or more mount<br>
> points under the /afs tree. These volumes can be moved from
server<br>
> to server while they are in use. This is great when you have
to<br>
> take down a machine, or you run out of space on it. The users
never<br>
> notice.<br>
<br>
This can also be considered a disadvantage. When using AFS, you are<br>
forced to manage your storage the AFS way. Files are effectively
not<br>
stored natively on the filesystem, and cannot be accessed via some other<br>
method, and must be backed up via afs-specific methods.<br>
<br>
It works pretty well, but as an NFSv4 presenter put it, NFS is a network<br>
filesystem - with AFS you have to swallow the whale of all the other AFS<br>
stuff.<br>
<br>
danno<br>
--<br>
dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2<br>
734/352-4953 office 734/834-7224 mobile<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenAFS-info mailing list<br>
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org<br>
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
--=_alternative 005496BB652570C2_=--