On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Kevin Atkinson wrote:

> One Question though.  Is the current implementation of AFS the same way?
> That is does AFS also insist on reading the entire file before any parts
> of it can be access?  If so maybe I will look at AFS.  However, AFS from
> my experience AFS is a pain to deal with due to kerberos.

There are at least two different implementations.
OpenAFS caches parts of the files (and hence is totally unsuitable for
disconnected operation). Arla caches whole files like Coda and contains
some code for disconnected mode.

As for the filesystem properties, I think as a user you would be most
happy with DFS. It is very effectively caching, can provide both ACLs and
clean traditional *nix semantics, is available for many platforms.

Now DFS is going OpenSource (great news in itself),
and hopefully will be widely available.

But DFS needs even more complicated management than AFS.
Alas, there are no simple-still-universal systems, distributed data
management *is* complicated :(

As for disconnected operation you might want to look at Unison.
A very good software, but it cannot handle files >1G yet.

Regards,
--
Ivan