Re: [OpenAFS] Best Filesystem
Am Sonntag, 12. April 2009 10:01:22 schrieb Jason C. Wells: Amongst UFS2, EXT3, and ZFS, which is most recommended for use as a backing store for AFS? UFS2 and ZFS are Solaris, EXT3 is Linux. What is your server OS? Which for the AFS client cache? That depends on your client OS. I am considering adopting ZFS. So your server OS is Solaris? Bye... Dirk ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Best Filesystem
Dirk Heinrichs wrote: So your server OS is Solaris No. My server OS is debian. My client OS are FreeBSD, debian, XP. Your assumption that file system suitability is determined purely by OS is limited. ZFS appears to ready for prime time on BSD and Linux or it will be soon enough for me to start thinking about adopting it. Regards, Jason ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Best Filesystem
Jason C. Wells j...@highperformance.net wrote: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: So your server OS is Solaris No. My server OS is debian. My client OS are FreeBSD, debian, XP. Your assumption that file system suitability is determined purely by OS is limited. ZFS appears to ready for prime time on BSD and Linux or it will be soon enough for me to start thinking about adopting it. Your assumption is that just because an OS supports a filesystem, that OpenAFS will support it for a client cache. This is not the case. Support for ZFS caches on Solaris does NOT mean that ZFS on Linux would work. I'd stick with etx2/ext3 caches on Linux if I were you. You are welcome to try it out, but I'm fairly certain you'll run into strange errors using ZFS on Linux as an afs cache partition. CDC ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Best Filesystem
Am Sonntag, 12. April 2009 18:15:59 schrieb Jason C. Wells: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: So your server OS is Solaris No. My server OS is debian. My client OS are FreeBSD, debian, XP. Your assumption that file system suitability is determined purely by OS is limited. YMMV, but I would only use a filesystem that was originally developed for my OS or at least well tested on this OS, especially when it should store my valuable data. ZFS appears to ready for prime time on BSD and Linux or it will be soon enough for me to start thinking about adopting it. Yes, there's something called ZFS for Linux. But that's a FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) thing. That module is also in very early stages of development and its status page shows a lot of things which don't work, and some that will never work, due to FUSE limitations. I'd say your chances will be better if you wait for another year and try btrfs, then (you can also try it now, with linux 2.6.29, but I would suggest to try it on test systems only). So, on Linux as a server, use one of the big 4 (ext[23], xfs, reiser or jfs) for vice partitions. For Linux clients, use ext2. For FreeBSD and XP, I don't know what's the best FS for the client cache. Bye... Dirk ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Best Filesystem
Christopher D. Clausen wrote: Your assumption is that just because an OS supports a filesystem, that OpenAFS will support it for a client cache. This is not the case. Support for ZFS caches on Solaris does NOT mean that ZFS on Linux would work. I'd stick with etx2/ext3 caches on Linux if I were you. You are welcome to try it out, but I'm fairly certain you'll run into strange errors using ZFS on Linux as an afs cache partition. That's the sort of heads up that I was hoping to get. Thanks! Jason ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Best Filesystem
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:01, Jason C. Wells j...@highperformance.net wrote: Amongst UFS2, EXT3, and ZFS, which is most recommended for use as a backing store for AFS? Which for the AFS client cache? I am considering adopting ZFS. I have read some favorable comments in the archives about ZFS. Is there a killer feature that makes ZFS suitable/unsuitable for AFS use? On a related note, has anyone tried out ext4 partitions on Linux as client cache or file server partitions? -- Erik Dalén ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
