The June 2011 OpenAFS newsletter is now available at
http://www.openafs.org/newsletter/newsletter-2011-06-volume003-issue06.html.
Thanks,
Jason
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-
Hi folks,
Although my OpenAFS file servers will probably never see more than a
dozen simultaneous client connections, what would be a good amount of
memory to give them? They currently each have only 1 GB of RAM, but I
can give them a lot more than that if it would make a difference.
Also
> Also, does an OpenAFS file server only really take advantage of extra
> memory if you configure a memory cache* for it?
A memory cache is a client-side thing. So although technically you could have
one on a server (if you also had the AFS cache manager, aka client, on there),
it would probab
Quoting Chaz Chandler :
A memory cache is a client-side thing. So although technically you
could have one on a server (if you also had the AFS cache manager,
aka client, on there), it would probably not do what you are thinking.
Okay, so a memory cache, like a disk cache, is just client st
One way you can take deterministic advantage of more memory in today's
fileservers (caveat, if you have the workload) is to increase the number of
callbacks supported. If you're not already setting a million or so, for rw
file service, you might consider increasing that parameter.
Matt
-
On 19 Jun 2011, at 21:32, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> One way you can take deterministic advantage of more memory in today's
> fileservers (caveat, if you have the workload) is to increase the number of
> callbacks supported. If you're not already setting a million or so, for rw
> file service,
Jaap Winius writes:
> Quoting Chaz Chandler :
>> A memory cache is a client-side thing. So although technically you
>> could have one on a server (if you also had the AFS cache manager, aka
>> client, on there), it would probably not do what you are thinking.
> Okay, so a memory cache, like a d
Quoting "Matt W. Benjamin" :
... If you're not already setting a million or so, for rw file
service, you might consider increasing that parameter.
It looks like it would be possible to increase that parameter by using
the "fileserver" command along with, say, the -L option. First I'd
delet
(Yes, exactly.) IIRC, by default it's around 64k, but was going to be
increased?
Matt
- "Jaap Winius" wrote:
> Quoting "Matt W. Benjamin" :
>
> > ... If you're not already setting a million or so, for rw file
> > service, you might consider increasing that parameter.
>
> It looks like i
Actually, not exactly. And Russ already sent a template with some good
defaults. If you want more than that number of callbacks, increase the value
for -cb.
Matt
- "Matt W. Benjamin" wrote:
> (Yes, exactly.) IIRC, by default it's around 64k, but was going to be
> increased?
>
> Matt
>
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:38:47 +0200
Jaap Winius wrote:
> But, to see if I this is necessary, how can I tell what the (maximum)
> number of callbacks is that my fileserver is actually setting?
This command will give you some callback-related information:
xstat_fs_test -collID 3 -onceonly
The in
11 matches
Mail list logo
