DSM Review, NFS, AFS: Difference between revisions

From Soma-notes
Jmahonin (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Jmahonin (talk | contribs)
Line 22: Line 22:


== Goals of NFS and AFS==
== Goals of NFS and AFS==
===NFS===
===NFS===
* Remote access like local access
* Remote access like local access
Line 32: Line 33:
* Scale to 5000 - 10000 hosts
* Scale to 5000 - 10000 hosts
* Portability (POSIX)
* Portability (POSIX)
== Differences ==
===NFS===
# NFS does a system call for every read/write
# NFS can operate with diskless clients
===AFS===
# AFS does a system call only on retrieving and storing a file
# AFS assumes clients have a hard disk

Revision as of 19:55, 13 February 2008

Readings

Questions

For the Protic paper, consider the following:

  1. What were the major problems addressed in DSM research following Kai Li's dissertation?
  2. Did these advances change the scope of environments and problems appropriate for DSM?
  3. Why aren't DSM systems commonly in use today?


For the NFS and AFS papers, consider these questions:

  1. What were the key design goals of NFS and AFS?
  2. How well did they achieve their goals?
  3. What are their limitations?
  4. How suitable are NFS and AFS in modern small networks? Enterprise networks? Internet-scale applications? Why?

Goals of NFS and AFS

NFS

  • Remote access like local access
  • Scale to ~50 clients
  • Portability
  • Lightweight

AFS

  • Seamless
  • Scale to 5000 - 10000 hosts
  • Portability (POSIX)

Differences

NFS

  1. NFS does a system call for every read/write
  2. NFS can operate with diskless clients

AFS

  1. AFS does a system call only on retrieving and storing a file
  2. AFS assumes clients have a hard disk