I assume nobody of you is running an actual Osx server ? I mean the upgrade to a full server version of the commonly distributed normal Osx releases ?
I have not done it yet but I do think many of the issues mentioned regarding NFS/NIS could be addressed there. Regarding the missing macpro upgrades I expect to see new machines with thunderbolt connectivity in the next 4 months. And I will buy my third macpro then to run it as a true server.
Jürgen
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:21, "Peter Keller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 01:54 -0700, James Stroud wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nat Echols wrote:
>>> The real difficulty is integrating Macs into a
>>> Linux-centric environment, for example configuring NFS, NIS, etc.
>>
>> That's because NFS and NIS are antiquities left over from the days of
>> mainframes. Distributed file systems and user information databases
>> are designed for an environment of many workers and few machines, when
>> the typical graphics workstation cost $50,000. These days, we argue
>> whether to spend an extra $200 on a $500 computer. We have moved to a
>> new paradigm: many workers with many more machines, with each machine
>> having essentially mainframe levels of storage and computing power.
>
> Technically there is something in what you say as a pattern for
> day-to-day work (for some people, although not all), but I think that
> describing the debate in terms of modern vs. antiquated is missing the
> point completely. The real difference between local vs. centralised
> storage is to do with responsibility for the hardware and the data that
> it contains.
>
> Local workstation storage is OK for the following kinds of cases:
>
> (i) the data that are stored locally have no value, so it doesn't matter
> if they are lost (either through hardware failure, misbehaving software
> or accidental deletion).
>
> (ii) the user has the expertise and the time to set up and maintain a
> strategy for recovering data that are lost from local disks
>
> (iii) the institution that the user works for allows the user to include
> data on local workstation disks in the institution's regular backup
> operations
>
> When none of these apply, there is a real, contemporary case for using
> something like NFS, where the storage is centrally maintained and backed
> up. The cost of storage has fallen of course, but what that means is
> that the real questions now are about the value of the data. In some
> fields, you could store your entire career's data on a few USB memory
> sticks, but I doubt that many people would want to do that without
> having made other copies somewhere else, and the same applies to local
> workstation storage too :-).
>
> There are other considerations in favour of connecting a workstation to
> networked services: if you use more than one machine it can be an
> incredible pain to be constantly moving data around from one to the
> other, and to keep track of what the authoritative versions are. Having
> independent, local user id's and passwords on every workstation can also
> cause difficulties. I could go on....
>
>> In other words, instead of NFS, you should run git.
>
> This is simply not an option for many crystallographers, who do not have
> a background in software development or data management. Advocating and
> supporting git (or indeed any content/version management system) for
> those kind of users is a losing battle: they see it as an unnecessary
> complication to their daily work, and will avoid using it as far as they
> can.
>
> Regards,
> Peter.
>
> --
> Peter Keller Tel.: +44 (0)1223 353033
> Global Phasing Ltd., Fax.: +44 (0)1223 366889
> Sheraton House,
> Castle Park,
> Cambridge CB3 0AX
> United Kingdom
|