Re: OpenAFS vs IBM AFS

On 8/12/2022 2:01 PM, Ben Huntsman ([email protected]) wrote:
>    That is about what I thought.  I guess I ask because for those of 
> us who work more with AIX than the other platforms, it would be 
> interesting and valuable to be able to track the IBM code base as 
> well, even if that were kept in a separate repository from OpenAFS.
I'm not sure how tracking the IBM code base is all that helpful. The IBM 
AFS client does not support new RPCs added to OpenAFS nor does it 
include the most of the other changes.  In the end its the developer 
time and access to AIX systems and development tools that are required 
to support an AFS client and server.   If there is an end user community 
for an AIX AFS client, then it would be helpful if that community would 
provide resources to OpenAFS to make it happen.
>
>    I'm also very interested in what it took to clean the code base to 
> achieve the 1.0 release.  I know some things were removed such as that 
> washtool thing, and the special version of AIX's fsck that is AFS-aware.
The primary changes were to remove code that IBM didn't have permission 
to re-license, comments that referenced customers, or functionality that 
was specific to certain private builds, and any references to 
individuals by name.    There was more but that was the practical work.  
Reviewing a million line code base so legal can sign off on things is a 
lot of work.
> But that was a long time ago.  I wonder if times have changed and if 
> there would be fewer legal and technical hurdles to releasing some of 
> those things?

I doubt it.  All of the original work would need to be repeated.

> The AIX AFS-aware fsck would be worthwhile even now.
I disagree.  In OpenAFS any validation of the contents of the Volume 
Group object stores located in the vice partition file systems should be 
performed by the on-demand salvager.   There should be no need to run an 
external tool while the services are shutdown.


Jeffrey Altman