Regarding NFS, I've always loved this quote from the CTO at a hedge fund I once worked at:

"NFS is lot like heroin:

at first, it seems amazing.

But then it ruins your life"

(This is a place that did almost EVERYTHING via NFS including different applications communicating via shared files on NFS mounts. It also had the weird setup of using BOTH Linux AND Windows permissions on NFS mounts shared between user desktops [windows] an servers [linux])

▲

stavros a day ago | parent [-]

The problem I have with reviews like these is that they're expressed in absolute terms. Yes, NFS might ruin my life, but if it ruins my life less than every other alternative, it's still a win.

▲

eqvinox a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'd go as far as saying most networked concurrent file access will ruin your life one way or another, because it's just a hard problem, and it's trying to solve it at a very odd layer; a "classic" fs can't really take advantage of higher layer transactional or other known constraints in order to make things work better…

▲

fragmede a day ago | parent [-]

Google Docs solved the problem at the right layer then.

	▲	eqvinox a day ago \| parent [-]
		No, Google Docs solved a different problem at the right layer. Their solution isn't transferable to other specific problems that may currently be approached using networked file systems, let alone the generic case.

▲

burnt-resistor a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The devil is in the details, the devil you know is preferable, and there's yet no perfectly angelic systems or code (because of the widespread allergy to formal methods and job security).. which will lead to less evil, but still imperfect systems.

▲

johncolanduoni a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Continuing the analogy, many people eventually discover that they used NFS because they didn’t understand their underlying problem clearly.