3 ms·
When a massively distributed file system[1] was introduced into the Linux kernel circa Y2K, there was what I remember as a lot of hype. Nobody, but nobody want
by rdancer 11y ago
When a massively distributed file system[1] was introduced into the Linux kernel circa Y2K, there was what I remember as a lot of hype.
Nobody, but nobody wanted it then (or since, it's still part of the kernel), and I would be surprised if anybody wanted something similar today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_File_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_File_System
- njloof 11y agoAll undergraduate accounts at Carnegie Mellon were on AFS in the 1990s. It may have been ahead of its time -- all I know is (a) it was much less reliable than NFS; (b) its security policy was different enough that people (admins included) left lots of security holes; and (c) *.struck
- mileswu 11y agoCERN still uses AFS extensively for all users' files. I believe they use a forked version of OpenAFS. My experience with it at CERN has been okay. It's been fine to use locally, but transatlantic over the Internet can be very slow (it does work eventually though). I'm not sure if there are any alternatives that work any better over long distance. I suppose CERN also has CVMFS [1], which is a read-only caching filesystem that retrieves the files from upstream via HTTP. This works much better, but it is read-only so only satisfies certain use cases. [1] http://cernvm.cern.ch/portal/filesystem http://cernvm.cern.ch/portal/filesystem
- kordless 11y ago> uses a set of trusted servers This uses a set of untrusted servers, so it's different. Also, trust use-cases come in a lot of different flavors, so the comparison of 'wants' is pretty thin.