Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Jun 2006 15:36 UTC, submitted by user123
NetBSD "Network attached storage has been known to Unix users for a very long time with NFS. NFS is reliable, performs well on the performance front, but it is infamous for its security. The biggest problem with NFS is that the client is responsible for controlling user file access. The NFS server just accepts file system operations on behalf of a given UID and enforces nearly no control. NFS require you trust your clients, something that may not be adequate. Andrew File System is an alternative network file system. In this interview, I ask Ty Sarna about his experience with AFS. Ty Sarna has been an AFS user since 1992 and is a NetBSD developer since 1998."
Permalink for comment 134034
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
afs is nice
by koen on Fri 16th Jun 2006 01:22 UTC
Member since:

i run openbsd arla clients + netbsd openafs server for a small year at home, and it just works; it's a bit slow though on 100mbit for music and movies around a whole house with many clients, but you can tune local caches somewhat ("buy more ram" - afs is not very tunable). openbsd has a very nice openafs server and client lkm for a while now, which i've yet to try. i used gentoo openafs clients in the same setup for about a month, and it never failed either. for easy-access storage, i really like the combination of netbsd's cgd, ufs2 and afs... netbsd has coda in ports too, i think, but coda seems like some neverending university hobby horse.

the downside of any afs implementation is the whole kerberos mess - though it's nice it works out-of-the-box on open/netbsd ;)

Reply Score: 3