Beta 2.5 kernel?

[ron.peterson at yellowbank.com (Ron Peterson)]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:50:13PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Ron Peterson <ron.peterson at yellowbank.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:18:01PM -0400, Robert La Ferla wrote:
> > 
> > > Has anyone tried out the beta 2.5 kernels?  How stable are they?  What 
> > > does 2.5 offer over 2.4?  Is it worth trying???
> > 
> > The thing I think I'm looking forward to the most is NFSv4 support,
> > which I believe was just recently being rolled into the 2.5 series.
> > NFSv3 is insecure.  AFS has the requisite features to be considered a
> > viable secure distributed filesystem, but has never really caught on.  I
> > hat to say it, but SMB, for all of its flaws, remains a legitimate
> > contender.
> 
> SMB is a contender??  Why?  There is no security in it at all.

Well, w/ nfs3 all I have to do is boot from a floppy and fake a uid.  At
least smb makes it a /little/ harder...

> NFSv4 is probably fine for small clusters, but (last I heard) doesn't
> have the volume management features of AFS.

Tell me more.

> I think AFS' only failure is lack of a reasonable marketing
> department.

I've been using debian rather than RH lately, and now that I look I see
all kinds of openafs-* packages are available.  Cool.  IIRC, last time I
looked into it, I believe was using RH, and there was nothing I could
'up2date'.  Keeping lots of machines current can be a chore.  This is a
big reason I've been turning to debian.  Red Hat has up2date, but I can
more easily maintain a local debian mirror, blah blah

> > How do you set up a cluster of Linux workstations to have secure access
> > to a shared filesystem?  It's a bitch.
> 
> Personally, I use AFS.  :)

OK, now that I see it may be easier than the last time I looked, I'm going to look
into it.  Nice to know there's someone here using it.

-- 
Ron Peterson                   -o)
87 Taylor Street               /\\
Granby, MA  01033             _\_v
https://www.yellowbank.com/   ----