I think Eric is probably right and we should move to an NFS solution. Both
linux and FreeBSD support knfs (kerberos authenticated nfs).
Finally, I think it would also make sense for our file server and our linux
boxes to be configured with SMB support so we can easily move files between
Windows and Unix (again, both linux and FreeBSD have such support).
- Stefan
-----Original Message-----
From: eric hoffman [mailto:hoffman@cs.washington.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 1:37 PM
To: spin-m3@cs.washington.edu; porcupine@cs.washington.edu;
syn@cs.washington.edu
Subject: re: updating cluster linux boxes?
i think installing an non-transarc afs client across the entire
cluster is an invitation for disaster...in fact the current transarc
client has been problematic itself (crashes, corrupted caches, very
poor performance...)
its also clear that we can't keep everything at 2.2 forever
my suggestion would be that we move away from using afs. it does have
alot of nice features, but because of its limited availability we
aren't really using them. it also requires a certain amount of
maintenance work that we aren't putting into it
to replace afs we would have to phase in an nfs service for use by the
systems group. the major disadvantages to this are the complete lack
of security, and a paucity of windows clients (?). i'd be happy to put
time into this and i think we could do it easily with existing
resources. nspring and i have already been scheming of a way to cobble
together such a service. of course it would need to have a viable
backup strategy, we would have to either coordinate with lab or put
some money into suitably dense media.
however, even without a real cache i expect it to perform better than
afs (just because of the generation of the current afs servers), have
much broader playform support, and be alot less trouble to maintain.