On Mar 21, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Atro Tossavainen wrote:
I've tried to address this with faster DNS, installing BIND etc,
Which part of AFS is dependent on DNS in any way? I didn't think it was.
CellServDB can be put in DNS (for database server lookups).
Also, I believe AFS will use DNS for
Thanks Lars, I tested with these settings. The results were around those
150KB/s with 20M/2000 files and 500+ KB/s with a single large file towards
AFS, the latter of which crashed again. I need to find a way to check and
fix the filesystem, BTW.
I guess I'm expecting to have some single major
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-03-22 00:53, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Forgot one thing:
...
For me the slowness in WAN is about latency.
...
I've tried to address this with faster DNS, installing BIND etc,
but with no notable improvement. Is this
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:42:16 +0100
Lars Schimmer l.schim...@cgv.tugraz.at wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-03-22 00:53, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Forgot one thing:
...
For me the slowness in WAN is about latency.
...
I've tried to address
Hi,
as a follow-up to my previous posting about Liitin project
(http://liitin.finndesign.fi)...
While Liitin works beautifully in a 1Gb LAN environment, running it over
WAN slows it down considerably. Until now, a proof-of-concept has been
enough, but it has become a dog-fooding issue.
As I
On 21.03.2012 18:09, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Hi,
All communication must be encrypted.
Ok, so you have enabled the fs crypt function in OpenAFS?
That feature is about to change with new RX standard, but current crypt
function is:
1. very insecure
2. very very slow
3. very very
On 21.03.2012 18:09, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Hi,
All communication must be encrypted.
Ok, so you have enabled the fs crypt function in OpenAFS?
Right
That feature is about to change with new RX standard, but current crypt
function is:
1. very insecure
2. very very slow
Forgot one thing:
...
For me the slowness in WAN is about latency.
...
I've tried to address this with faster DNS, installing BIND etc, but with
no notable improvement. Is this especially critical with OpenAFS, or
possibly when transferring a high number of small files (like Firefox
writing
Hmmm... How feasible is VPN serving the number of concurrent users the
OpenAFS is capable of?
I know somewhere where they terminated direct world access to AFS and
required users to go through VPN first. It's not a bottleneck, at least
in that configuration. The number of AFS users is likely
I've tried to address this with faster DNS, installing BIND etc,
Which part of AFS is dependent on DNS in any way? I didn't think it was.
no notable improvement. Is this especially critical with OpenAFS, or
possibly when transferring a high number of small files (like Firefox
writing things
On Mar 21, 2012, at 4:37 PM, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
On 21.03.2012 18:09, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Hi,
All communication must be encrypted.
Ok, so you have enabled the fs crypt function in OpenAFS?
Right
That feature is about to change with new RX
Hmmm... How feasible is VPN serving the number of concurrent users the
OpenAFS is capable of?
I know somewhere where they terminated direct world access to AFS and
required users to go through VPN first. It's not a bottleneck, at least
in that configuration. The number of AFS users is
I've tried to address this with faster DNS, installing BIND etc,
Which part of AFS is dependent on DNS in any way? I didn't think it was.
In no particular way, other than just how long it takes to find and reach
the OpenAFS server in the first place, and then whether each packet need
to do
On Mar 21, 2012, at 4:37 PM, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
On 21.03.2012 18:09, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Hi,
All communication must be encrypted.
Ok, so you have enabled the fs crypt function in OpenAFS?
Right
That feature is about to change with new RX standard,
14 matches
Mail list logo
