On Wednesday, November 23, 2005 04:50:26 PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
This can also be considered a disadvantage. When using AFS, you are
forced to manage your storage the AFS way. Files are effectively not
stored natively on the filesystem, and cannot be accessed via some other
method, and must be backed up via afs-specific methods.
It works pretty well, but as an NFSv4 presenter put it, NFS is a network
filesystem - with AFS you have to swallow the whale of all the other AFS
stuff.
I actively do not want files stored natively on a filesystem. I do not
want to have to traverse an inode tree in order to do a vos release.
Since AFS stores volumes already serialized, you can stream that file off
the disk and across the network much faster than doing the equivalent of
"tar -cf - . | nc destfileserver | tar -xf -" through a directory
structure.
Actually, no. AFS does not store volumes serialized in a single file; that
would have horrible performance and/or require the addition of a block
allocation layer. AFS always stores each vnode in a distinct file; the
difference between inode and namei is how those files are accessed, not how
the data is structured.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sr. Research Systems Programmer
School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
