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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
