| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
CRFS and POHMELFS
CRFS and POHMELFS
Posted Feb 7, 2008 9:41 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: CRFS and POHMELFS by heini
Parent article: CRFS and POHMELFS
AFS, with a much more efficient protocol, not a horror to administer, and actually making an effort to be a POSIX filesystem rather than gratuitously reinventing things like, oh, permissions? Seems like a good thing to me, although you could replace `AFS' with 'a distributed filesystem' and get the same answer :)
(Log in to post comments)
CRFS and POHMELFS/AFS
Posted Feb 8, 2008 3:17 UTC (Fri) by linuxbox (subscriber, #6928) [Link]
A more interesting comparison for me would be CRFS vs. GFS or OCFS--which, I rather suspect, is more what the btrfs authors are aiming at.
CRFS and POHMELFS/AFS (what about HAMMER?)
Posted Feb 8, 2008 13:03 UTC (Fri) by Velmont (subscriber, #46433) [Link]
How does HAMMER fit into all of this? Yes, it is being developed for DragonflyBSD, but it could maybe come into Linux. Does anyone know? :-)
CRFS and POHMELFS/AFS
Posted Feb 9, 2008 22:42 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
I'd like to know how it's better than NFSv4. The only reason NFSv4 exists is to solve those classic NFS problems. It definitely has client-side caching and POSIX inter-user synchronization of file access.