AFS or DFS (off topic - sorry)

[Magnus Ahltorp]

> At Aalborg University, Denmark, we do consider to introduce AFS as our
> strategic backbone, but is AFS the right choise? It seems, that many
> is moving toward DFS, but I can't find any article, which compares
> these products. Is AFS dead? How does AFS/DFS compare regarding
> expenses? Our platform is mainly Solaris, Linux and Windows 95/98/NT.

If you ask me, AFS is far from dead. Many sites use AFS, and it works
well. The disadvantage of DFS, as I see it, is the tighter
client-server relation, where the client needs to request read and
write permission for parts of the file. This is also DFS' main
feature, as I see it, if that functionality is wanted (propagating
single reads and writes throughout the network).

Otherwise, it just makes the system more vunerable to network
breakdowns (even short ones). In arla, we have just merged in
disconnected support from wwshen at engin.umich.edu et.al as a step
towards better network breakdown handling. DFS is a step in the
opposite direction.

Among other things that differ are access controls, where DFS has a
much more complicated model with file permissons as well as directory
permissons. People I have spoken to have felt that this DFS' access
control model is too complicated, especially for new users.

/Magnus