[OpenAFS] Re: afs vs nfs

[lamont@scriptkiddie.org]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
> 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.

I actively do not want files stored natively on a filesystem.  I do not 
want to have to traverse an inode tree in order to do a vos release. 
Since AFS stores volumes already serialized, you can stream that file off 
the disk and across the network much faster than doing the equivalent of 
"tar -cf - . | nc destfileserver | tar -xf -" through a directory 
structure.  Please don't suggest changing this if you don't understand how 
it affects the streaming vs. seeking performance of operations.  The fact 
that AFS stores data in a serialized format in managable chunks is a 
*HUGE* win.