On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 14:26 -0700, James A. Peltier wrote: > ----- Original Message -----
> | You mean, NFSv4 seems more "transparent" to you (whatever that means) > | than, say, NFSv2? > > No, in that NFSv4 with Kerberos was an easier move from NFSv3 than to move to > something like AFS, which seem would have required much more work to migrate > the existing systems. What problem were you trying to solve by moving to NFSv4 from NFSv3? AFS was interesting in 1990. It also had some security flaws that led to it being sunset in many environments by about 1998. It also had some damn annoying issues with cache coherency between systems which made it a nightmare for running circuit simulations and synthesis on a cluster. DCE/DFS was interesting 12-15 years ago, but lacked wide platform adoption and was essentially killed off when key people quit working on it in 2000. If you're actually writing oodles and oodles from many servers at once, you're going to want a cluster filesystem suitable for scientific computing. If you're doing manipulation of the files from workstations... you go with whatever is supported on them... but I'm not seeing OpenBSD as a prime candidate for workstations. Thanks, Chris Dukes
