Talk:Andrew File System

Influence on NFS???

It says: "The Andrew File System heavily influenced Version 4 of Sun Microsystems' popular Network File System (NFS)". but this should be confirmed with credible links or it should be removed. For instance, ZFS influenced BTRFS but we need credible links to establish this fact. Until then, we can not say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.137 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Owner" permission

Andrew File System#Available_Permissions says:

Files that are to be granted read access to any user, including the owner, need to have the standard UNIX "owner read" permission set. This can be done with the command chmod o+r filename.

For Linux's chmod it's "u" for user (i.e., "owner") and "o" for other (and "g" for group). Is UNIX really different? Chmod seems to indicate not. EdDavies 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are correct and the article is wrong. However, even corrected, I think there is no point in having the chmod invocation listed. It is only appropriate for the user, and the sentences read "users...,including the owner," so it is wrong in the other cases anyway. -- Jon Dowland 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New implementation?

It looks like RedHat is starting to implement a new AFS system directly in the Linux kernel, so later, this article will need updated from 3 to 4 implementations. http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_22 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob_plain;f=Documentation/filesystems/afs.txt;hb=HEAD -- Andrew 8 July 2007

that's an extremely bare-bones, unauthenticated client used for booting off of AFS... it's not a replacement for arla or openafs... it's just enough to get a readonly root fs mounted and the machine up. Megacz 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still worthy of mention. -- Jon Dowland 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. And, it turns out that it's being actively developed. Megacz 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missing bits

A spate of vandalism got masked by various bot edits, and the article has moved on enough that it's not worth reverting that far back.

removed references
- Howard, J.H., Kazar, M.L., Menees, S.G., Nichols, D.A., Satyanarayanan, M., Sidebotham, R.N., & West, M.J., Scale and Performance in a Distributed File System, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1988.
- Campbell, Richard (1998). Managing AFS: The Andrew File System., Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-802729-3.
- Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
removed 'see also'
removed 'external links'

The see also / external links sections might not be missed, and the references weren't tied to citations in the article body. It might be useful to read these references and add citations into the article. -- Jon Dowland 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge proposal

Both Andrew File System and OpenAFS are a bit scant on details. OpenAFS is the main implementation of AFS available, and grew out of one of the other major implementations, which was the sole implementation initially. The history of the OpenAFS project is therefore largely the history of AFS in it's entirety and would be better placed in the Andrew File System article.

merge OpenAFS into Andrew File System. Jon Dowland 12:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge... there are at least three implementations of the client and two or three implementations of the server. It's like proposing to merge Apache and HTTP. Megacz 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the case of Apache and HTTP, both articles are of a good size and much of the information is only of relevance to one of the articles. In this case, the neither OpenAFS nor Andrew File System is particularly large; the information in OpenAFS is of relevance to the Andrew File System article and it is not already present. As for the number of implementations, that isn't of relevance for this specific merge proposal. -- Jon Dowland 14:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely should be merged. OpenAFS is the direct decendent of the Andrew File System. Not doing so because of Arla or the mythical Red Hate version(s) is irrelevant; Arla development started long before AFS was open sourced, and any other implimentation is either independantly developed OR developed from OpenAFS source, NOT from Andrew File System source. In my unhumble opinion, merge 'em. -- Mizmoose 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Hat version isn't mythical; it's included in every copy of the linux 2.6 source code. I think there is some confusion here over the difference between "the protocol called AFS" and "the corpus of software formerly known as CMU AFS, Transarc AFS, IBM AFS, and Open AFS". Perhaps a stub page AFS_(protocol) and AFS_(software program) would solve this. Megacz 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be merged. Stupid idea. They are quite separate and AFS is a thing of the past, in contrast OpenAFS is under active use and development. However, we may wish to disinguish between the protocol and the filesystem.

Can be Merged! Carnegie Mellon University programmers developed AFS in 1983. Soon after, the university set up a company called Transarc to sell services based on AFS. IBM acquired Transarc in 1998 and made AFS available as an open source product under the name OpenAFS. ^[1]--Raviemani (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be merged. AFS is the technology. OpenAFS is an implementation. It is not the same thing. 130.237.216.122 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ www.ibm.com

Description for external links

Behind the external links should be a description - what are they pointing to 79.221.116.168 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew File System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909232809/http://www.cmu.edu:80/corporate/news/2007/features/andrew/what_is_andrew.shtml to http://www.cmu.edu/corporate/news/2007/features/andrew/what_is_andrew.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] www.ibm.com

[1]