On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Robert Banz wrote:
I personally wouldn't want my mail storage on AFS. I say that because, right
now, it is, and I can't wait to get it off of it. It's caused me nothing but
problems, because the AFS fileserver doesn't just seem to be "made" to handle
the transactional intensity of mail-land. We got around a lot of our
performance issues by moving from a berkeley-based mailspool to a
maildir-like one a couple years ago, but now are always coming up against
performance (leading into stability) issues caused by AFS being part of the
stack. Less things being part of the stack with your mail system will make
things better; run it on some quality fibre or iscsi attached storage and you
won't end up screaming in pain later on.
callback issues, or something else?
i wouldn't expect corruption issues here, in spite of the question of
whether *performance* sucks because you're imposing another network round
trip (minimum) in an already-network protocol
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info