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

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:35 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thus I think that when one would modify the code, in large part the
> > code is common, and where it isn't at least the "switch" is visible in
> > there.  Therefore I'm confident that the `fileserver` is still a
> > viable solution.  :)
>
> I won't really dispute that it is viable at present, but it's pretty clear
> to me that it's no longer a *recommended* solution, and I don't really
> understand your attachment to it.  Is this just because you continue to
> investigate running a simple fileserver without the bosserver and
> demand-attach has more moving parts in that respect?


Exactly.  I want to simplify the OpenAFS deployment as much as
possible.  (Especially since the simpler it is, the better the chance
I actually understand what happens with my data.)


I see OpenAFS as a viable solution for a WAN-enabled NAS, that one
could quickly deploy (the "server" part) in a VM (or even a
container), and just use it.  (I'm really amazed that to day no other
WAN-enabled NAS solution exists, especially one that allows
user-defined ACL's, and one that works both on Linux and Windows...)

However as it stands today OpenAFS is geared towards large and static
deployments, and less for "experimental" ones.  I would really love If
I managed to "put together" a very lightweight VM that has just the
bare minimum services and moving parts.  (And this is really
achievable once one understands the "underlying" of managing a file
server.)


Ciprian.