Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 16:39:59 -0400 From: "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu> To: jbarbee@singular.com (John Barbee) Cc: freebsd-afs@FreeBSD.ORG, crossd@cs.rpi.edu Subject: Re: please clarify: afs and dfs and other fs Message-ID: <199907082039.QAA26580@cs.rpi.edu> In-Reply-To: Message from jbarbee@singular.com (John Barbee) of "Thu, 08 Jul 1999 12:53:01 PDT." <4.1.19990708123047.00a387b0@server7.singular.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hi, > I'm doing a little bit of research for a project that we may undertake in > the future. A lot of what we want to do is based around a reliable > distributed fs architecture. We've heard that IBM uses a lot of AFS for > their e-commerce, OSS-related stuff. I'm actually not that familiar with > IBM's practices, but that's what I'm told. Yes, IBM uses AFS for much of it e-commerce stuff. I am not sure if they have started using DFS for it much yet. At that level both FSs are almost identical. > Anyway, I read through the AFS FAQ and it seems to be something we can > use. However, I new to the different distributed file systems > architectures and don't understand certain things around AFS and hoped that > someone could clarify them. > According to AndrewII, AFS has been replaced by DFS from OSF. When I go > to OSF's website there is no mention of DSF. On a different note, I > thought DFS was a Microsoft product. Besides that, why are people working > on Arla (by this I mean make free versions of AFS instead of DFS) or > porting AFS if it has already been replaced? > Lastly, is this in any way related to CODA or CIFS? Transarc tried to replace AFS with DFS, but they tackle different problems. DFS is part of DCE (the Distributed Computing Environment). What AFS does is a subset of what DCE provides, but most people don't need the rest of that superset, and it is difficult to cleanly divorce DFS from the rest of DCE. As a result of this Transarc continues to support and develop both DCE/DFS and AFS. (AFS is a more focused solution, just looking at the filesystem. DCE takes the whole picture, from machine configuration management, to user management, to filesystem, it is much more muscle than most people need or want). There are a number of reasons to work on Arla. Most importantly is that not everyone has access to AFS from Transarc/IBM, it is a commercial product with commercial licensing. A reason for arla is that a free DCE/DFS port (OSF gives you the source) is years away from being available and stable. MicroSoft does also have a DFS product available. They have/are-being sued by Transarc to not use that name for their product, it is incompatible with TA's prodcut (all those surprised?). Coda attacks yet a different set of problems than DFS or AFS has addressed. Coda's primary advantage over any other distributed file system so far is its support for disconnected operation, especially ideal for laptops. Finally, "CIFS" is yet another MicroSoft thing. Look at it as "SMB 2000" or whatever. Its pretty much a non-issue for what you appear to be looking for. -- David Cross | email: crossd@cs.rpi.edu Systems Administrator/Research Programmer | Web: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~crossd Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, | Ph: 518.276.2860 Department of Computer Science | Fax: 518.276.4033 I speak only for myself. | WinNT:Linux::Linux:FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-afs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907082039.QAA26580>