Interesting read(s)... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2623.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3530.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz> wrote: > On Oct 29 06:05:28, James A. Peltier wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > | On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:23 +0200, "Henning Brauer" > > | <lists-open...@bsws.de> wrote: > > | > * James A. Peltier <jpelt...@sfu.ca> [2010-10-28 20:23]: > > | > > What it offers: > > | > > Kerberos security, > > | > > > | > what again? > > | > > > | > > selectable security level (-o sec=krb5/krb5i/krb5p), > > | > > > | > ha ha ha ha > > | > > > | > > firewall friendly > > | > > > | > rrrrright > > | > > | And this huge infrastructure creation (nfsv4/Kerberos/blah blah) all > > | so > > | his users can type 'cp' and 'mv' instead of 'put' and 'get'? > > | I don't get it. > > | Also the last time I checked SFTP was supported on all the > > | platforms he listed.... > > | Or did I miss something? > > > > No I cannot just put and get. Moving hundreds of gigabytes of medical > imaging data around with FTP/SSH would be out of the question. > > Yet moving hundreds of gigabytes of medical imaging data > around with NFS is OK. More specifically yet, moving them > around with NFSv4 is OK, but moving them around with NFSv3 > is not. Right? > > Let's stay technical: what exactly does NFSv4 do for you in your > situation that NFSv3 does not? "Kerberos security", as in "users > authenticate themselvzes"? "Firewall friendly"? How exactly is > NFSv4 more "firewall friendly" than NFSv3? > > (Don't get me wrong: I want a multi-platform shared storage too. > I do it with NFSv3. You use NFSv4, Kerberos, and Samba. How exactly > is that better?) > > Do you need file access or file transfer, in the sense of > Callahan's standard "NFS Illustrated" book? > > Jan
