Re: About `dafileserver` vs `fileserver` differences (for small cells)

On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 12:04:04PM +0200, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:43 AM Harald Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > However is it still "safe" and "advised" (outside of these
> > > disadvantages) to run the old `fileserver` component?
> >
> > I would recommend everyone to migrate to "da" and not recommend to
> > start with anything old. For obvious reasons, all the big
> > installations will migrate to "da" and you don't want to run another
> > codebase, don't you?
> 
> 
> Thanks Harald for the feedback.
> 
> This is exactly what I wanted to find out, namely if the `fileserver`
> and `dafileserver` have different code bases.  (And you've confirmed
> my hunch that the DAFS codebase is the currently maintained one.)

To be clear, they do share a great bit of code (dafs was not "from
scratch"), but there are many places that do get differential treatment in
the source -- look for AFS_DEMAND_ATTACH_FS preprocessor conditionals.

-Ben