On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
> Another possible scenario would be assume bypass until the file has been
> read once. That would cause all initial creates to bypass, but later
> appends/edits would return to normal speed.
How much of AFS' poor performance is due to the CM overhead
>I wonder if something as simple as "track the total bytes written to a
>particular file while that file is currently open, once it exceeds x% of
>the cache, bypass" would perform reasonably?
Is the write behavior necessarily this dependent on cache size alone? I'm
speculating that cache state w
I wonder if something as simple as "track the total bytes written to a
particular file while that file is currently open, once it exceeds x% of
the cache, bypass" would perform reasonably?
It wouldn't help the small cases.
Another possible scenario would be assume bypass until the file has been
r
Hello,
> hm, if i disable afsd, i don't need the openafs.o module, right?
Correct, but afsd (the AFS client) is needed to complete setting up the
server. Plus, it's always handy to be able to access the AFS server from
the same host... Some things work anyway (such as bos), but others do
not (suc
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Paul Blackburn wrote:
> You probably will get better data transfer from ftp-client => ftp-server
> than a distributed filesystem.
This, at least, is a protocol. scp is a hack, which is why I'm reluctant
to use it.
> When it comes to "uploading" large datafiles from machine t
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 12:22 PM, Paul Blackburn wrote:
Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Dexter "Kim" Kimball wrote:
It seems that cache garbage collection has some limitations when
asked to
fill/purge in a short cycle.
By the way, if you're going to routinely be r
Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Dexter "Kim" Kimball wrote:
It seems that cache garbage collection has some limitations when asked to
fill/purge in a short cycle.
By the way, if you're going to routinely be reading/writing large files
sequentially, you may want to experiment w
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Dexter "Kim" Kimball wrote:
> It seems that cache garbage collection has some limitations when asked to
> fill/purge in a short cycle.
>
> By the way, if you're going to routinely be reading/writing large files
> sequentially, you may want to experiment with AFS cache chunk s
You might try using afsmonitor to inspect the client's behavior when you
write the 2x file to the 1x cache.
After the cache fills, you should see the cache
filling/purging/filling/purging in a short cycle. "Cache files in use" vs.
Cache files free (inexact terminology).
This won't fix the perfor
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 01:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 06:36 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> > At 5:01 PM -0800 2/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> nfs 0.120u 21.030s 4:19.47 8.1%
> >> afs 0.5G cache 0.100u 517.330s 10:49.84 79.6%
> >> afs 2GB
10 matches
Mail list logo
