Re: (OT) The NFS security system
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 10:18:21AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> David Roundy wrote:
> > I second the recommendation of sfs, which is quite nice and pretty easy to
> > set up. Like nfs, it doesn't require any funky partitioning of your
> > drive.
> As opposed to what? Does Coda require weird partitioning?
That was what I remembered. I just took a look, and see that you don't
need to have a separate partition on the server for the RVM metadata, but
they warn that it could be slow if you don't use a separate partition
(around 40M / gigabyte served). Also the RVM transaction log is
recommended to be a raw partition but could be a file. I'm not sure why
they recommend it as a partition, but when the recommended method (in the
HOWTO) seems to involve two dedicated partitions, it seems like a bit much.