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."
Thread beginning with comment 133901
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: but...
by h_t_r on Thu 15th Jun 2006 19:48 UTC in reply to "but..."
h_t_r
Member since:
2006-02-02

root_fs using AFS? no.

AFS is powerfull, but not for all uses.. a great part of it features is useless to the common geek/sysadmin..

NFS is integrated in every *nix and do almost everything.. rootfs, fast file transfer, coffee...

NFSv4 is _the_ network filesystem: secure, faster, reliable... maybe perfect.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: but...
by EmmEff on Thu 15th Jun 2006 20:18 in reply to "RE: but..."
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

NFSv4 will be _the_ network filesystem as soon as everybody supports it and LIPKEY is implemented across the board (eliminating the need for the Kerberos security infrastructure).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: but...
by derekmorr on Sun 18th Jun 2006 20:00 in reply to "RE[2]: but..."
derekmorr Member since:
2005-09-25

There are a great many features that NFSv4 does not support, such as read-only replicas, a unified namespace, volume migration, etc. NFSv4 is not a replacement for AFS.

Reply Parent Score: 1