J. Roeleveld <joost <at> antarean.org> writes: > AFS has caching and can survive temporary disappearance of the server.
Excellent for low bandwidth connections. Most DFS have mechanisms to deal with transient failures, but not as generaous on the time-scale as AFS. I believe, if I recall correctly, these hi-latency, low bandwith recovery mechanism keen design paramters, at least bake in the CMU develop cycples, for AFS? While attractive for your situation, these features might actually be detrimental to a hi_performance distributed cluster's needs for a DFS? > For me, I need to be able to provide Samba filesharing on top of that > layer on 2 different locations as I don't see the network bandwidth to > be sufficient for normal operations. (ADSL uplinks tend to be dead slow) Yea, I'm not going to be testing OpenAFS for my needs, unless I read some compelling publish data on it's applicability to high end clusters best choice as a DFS..... It's probably great for SETI etc etc. James
