Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
I'm not saying that B isn't useful, but to say that it's better than A requires that it can replace A.
Dropbox and equivalent have their place, but they are not a replacement for NFS/CIFS/AFS or other network filesystems.
mainframe -> minicomputer -> PC -> smartphone
Posted Jun 23, 2012 20:37 UTC (Sat) by djao (guest, #4263)
Posted Jun 23, 2012 20:41 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
if A is used in the datacenters that provide the B functionality to users, then B would not exist without A and that would make A far more useful.
there are far more cars on the roads than trucks, but to say that cars are more useful, and therefor we should eliminate trucks would very quickly result in no more cars on the road either.
that's why I say that they are different, not more or less useful
Posted Jun 23, 2012 20:55 UTC (Sat) by djao (guest, #4263)
Posted Jun 23, 2012 21:25 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
And we actually don't have good solutions for WANs right now. But it's clear that the good old idea of 'network transparency' is dead.
Posted Jun 23, 2012 21:35 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
you would not use something like dropbox for a LAN filesystem
and that's my point, the solution for WAN and LAN are just different, what will work well for one will not work well with the other.
Posted Jun 23, 2012 22:27 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
It's clearly not optimal, sure. But it works everywhere.
Posted Jun 23, 2012 23:48 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
dropbox is not a replacement for NFS type things, it's a different beast that does different things.
Posted Jun 24, 2012 0:04 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Most of time they run things locally, but if they need a lot of computing power then they can log into the cluster server and run things there. And results will be synced back to their laptops. Yes, there's a small lag in replication, but it's just a few seconds usually.
I'd argue that this is a superior solution to using NFS.
Posted Jun 24, 2012 0:18 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
but I don't think that any of the git developers would take you seriously if you started saying that git was a replacement for NFS.
Although, in some workflows (like yours), git would probably work at least as well as dropbox
you are using dropbox to archive data and to access that archive from multiple places.
that is vastly different from the network filesystem approach where the application and user treat the remote storage like it was local storage.
Posted Jun 24, 2012 0:27 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Oh, and they're using rsnapshot for backups. So git's ability to store history is not really a selling point.
>that is vastly different from the network filesystem approach where the application and user treat the remote storage like it was local storage
As I see it, there are several main reasons for remote storage:
1) To be able to access large storage. It's not really a problem now when a typical notebook has more space than a SAN 20 years ago.
2) To share something. Dropbox works just fine for it in most cases when you don't need locking and sub-millisecond coherency.
3) To access archived data.
So DropBox works great for a lot of people simply because it doesn't try to do everything.
Posted Jun 24, 2012 6:20 UTC (Sun) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870)
It's a console app, inspired by sparkleshare and dvcs-autosync. As it works for me, and was written by me, it might have many rough edges though.
Feedback and patches welcome.
Posted Jul 1, 2012 2:55 UTC (Sun) by jnahmias (subscriber, #16282)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds