On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Adam Megacz wrote:
Robert Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't try to use Cyrus on AFS. It's a losing proposition from a
performance and data integrity standpoint.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread here, but I recently got grilled on
this point and was embarrassed at
Derrick J Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't try to use Cyrus on AFS. It's a losing proposition from a
performance and data integrity standpoint.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread here, but I recently got grilled on
this point and was embarrassed
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Adam Megacz wrote:
are you going to have multiple front ends accessing the data, or just
one machine?
For argument's sake, let's assume only a single front-end (imapd)
machine.
That's not especially dangerous, then. the worst risk is screwing with
Cyrus' idea of the
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Adam Megacz wrote:
are you going to have multiple front ends accessing the data, or just
one machine?
For argument's sake, let's assume only a single front-end (imapd)
machine.
That's not especially dangerous, then. the
I personally wouldn't want my mail storage on AFS. I say that
because, right now, it is, and I can't wait to get it off of it.
It's caused me nothing but problems, because the AFS fileserver
doesn't just seem to be made to handle the transactional intensity
of mail-land. We got
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Robert Banz wrote:
I personally wouldn't want my mail storage on AFS. I say that because, right
now, it is, and I can't wait to get it off of it. It's caused me nothing but
problems, because the AFS fileserver doesn't just seem to be made to handle
the transactional
On Jun 26, 2007, at 15:08, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Robert Banz wrote:
I personally wouldn't want my mail storage on AFS. I say that
because, right now, it is, and I can't wait to get it off of it.
It's caused me nothing but problems, because the AFS fileserver
Derrick J Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For argument's sake, let's assume only a single front-end (imapd)
machine.
That's not especially dangerous, then. the worst risk is screwing with
Cyrus' idea of the universe if a volume goes away under it, like, in
particular i'm uncertain we
On 6/26/07, Adam Megacz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derrick J Brashear [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For argument's sake, let's assume only a single front-end (imapd)
machine.
That's not especially dangerous, then. the worst risk is screwing with
Cyrus' idea of the universe if a volume goes away
Sorry to keep nagging you on this issue...
Robert Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i wouldn't expect corruption issues here, in spite of the question
of whether *performance* sucks because you're imposing another
network round trip (minimum) in an already-network protocol
No corruption
Adam Megacz wrote:
Sorry to keep nagging you on this issue...
Robert Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i wouldn't expect corruption issues here, in spite of the question
of whether *performance* sucks because you're imposing another
network round trip (minimum) in an already-network protocol
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Adam Megacz wrote:
Sorry to keep nagging you on this issue...
But not sorry enough not to.
Specifically, is it that the fileserver gets bogged down by having to
keep track of too many outstanding callbacks?
No, by having to deal with the results of breaking them and
Chaskiel M Grundman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PAM authentication is delegated to an outside process.
Ah, that's unfortunate.
- a
--
PGP/GPG: 5C9F F366 C9CF 2145 E770 B1B8 EFB1 462D A146 C380
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
