Hi Steve, Virtualization is fine and in many ways is preferred for OpenAFS file servers because the fileserver process is incapable of leveraging more than 1.7 processors threads due to lock and other resource contention. Compared to the bare metal a virtualized system might reduce overall throughput by 6%. On the flip side its nearly impossible to purchase a two processor thread system these days. The maximize the capabilities of the hardware host multiple VMs each with two processor threads. For vice partitions ext4 formatted iscsi block storage can be used.
When purchasing hardware for OpenAFS, minimize the number of processor threads and obtain the fastest clock speeds available. The number of packets per second that can be sent and received is directly proportional to the processor clock speed. On the other hand, if the hardware is going to be purchased with the intention of eventually deploying AuriStorFS servers on it, maximize the number of processor threads and use more power efficient processors with lower clock speeds. AuriStorFS servers unlike OpenAFS can make use of as much CPU and I/O bandwidth as is available. Jeffrey Altman On 1/15/2019 1:56 PM, Steve Simmons wrote: > The AFS support group (of whom I'm a former member) is considering > moving to virtual hosts under vmware for their next generation of > servers. So far they're looking at attempting to have the vhosts attach > the vice partitions directly from our SAN rather than having storage > mediated through vmware. If you're using or used virtualized servers, > we'd love to hear how their working out for you. > > At the moment, the servers are running OpenAFS 1.6.17. I don't know if > they're considering upgrading to 1.8.X as part of this or not. > > Advance thanks, > > Steve Simmons > ITS Unix Support/SCS Admins
<<attachment: jaltman.vcf>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
