On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:35 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Thus I think that when one would modify the code, in large part the
> > code is common, and where it isn't at least the "switch" is visible in
> > there. Therefore I'm confident that the `fileserver` is still a
> > viable solution. :)
>
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:20:43AM +0200, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:06 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > To be clear, they do share a great bit of code (dafs was not "from
> > scratch"), but there are many places that do get differential treatment in
> > the source --
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:06 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> To be clear, they do share a great bit of code (dafs was not "from
> scratch"), but there are many places that do get differential treatment in
> the source -- look for AFS_DEMAND_ATTACH_FS preprocessor conditionals.
Based on what I see:
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 12:04:04PM +0200, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:43 AM Harald Barth wrote:
> > > However is it still "safe" and "advised" (outside of these
> > > disadvantages) to run the old `fileserver` component?
> >
> > I would recommend everyone to migrate
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 01:49:18AM +0200, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:39 PM Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:11 PM Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> > > The performance issues could be anywhere and everywhere between the
> > > application being used
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:16 PM Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> The BOS Overseer Service plays a number of roles:
Just wanted to stress that `bos` is wonderful in a distributed
deployment, and I'm quite surprised that until this date we don't have
other "general purpose" alternatives.
However as
