> NFSv4 did NOT predate either the VAX filesystem or AFS. Sorry you are right. I was trying to say that they from filesystems architectures that predated AFS,

> NFSv4 did NOT predate either the VAX filesystem or AFS. Sorry you are right. I was trying to say that they from filesystems architectures that predated AFS, but that's really not the same thing. That sad, their approach was different from AFS (in some ways for better, though mostly worse). > Maybe it's better now, but given that everybody still seems to use Samba (or sneakernet) for file sharing, I'm wouldn't bet on it. Methinks you have a curious definition of "everybody". ;-) Honestly, I wasn't trying to hold up NFS or CIFS as anything resembling great solutions. Honestly, I love AFS. However, like all filesystems, it is rife with design trade offs. For example for the use cases that are intended to be addressed by the parallel file systems, as mentioned in the original article, it isn't a very good choice.