On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:10 AM Mark Vitale wrote:
> DAFS main benefit is the reduced impact of restarting a fileserver, especially
> fileserver with thousands or even millions of volumes. DAFS fileservers
> are able to restart more quickly, are able to avoid restarts formerly
> required for
>
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 03:28:10PM +0200, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:16 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > To a large extent, getting Kerberos set up is pretty much drop it in and
> > switch it on, but there's a lot of flexibility about principal names,
> > especially for
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 8:07 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 10:25:23PM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> Subject: [OpenAFS] About `dafileserver` vs `fileserver` differences (for
>> small cells) Date: Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 10:05:25PM +0200 Quoting Ciprian
>> Dorin Craciun
On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 10:25:23PM +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Subject: [OpenAFS] About `dafileserver` vs `fileserver` differences (for
> small cells) Date: Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 10:05:25PM +0200 Quoting Ciprian
> Dorin Craciun (ciprian.crac...@gmail.com):
> > Hello all!
> >
> > I understand
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 for testing and the disk backing the vice partition.
OK, so first of all I
[Replying also to the list, just to mention the benchmarking technique.]
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 for testing and the disk backing the vice partition.
The issue is not
Small correction to the previous email, the `-chunksize` for the
server `afsd` was `20` (i.e. 1MiB) at the time of the experiment. And
the `-dcache` on the LAN client was `65536`.
(The values in my initial email were based on some notes I had while I
was trying various parameters.)
Ciprian.
[I've changed the subject to reflect the new topic.]
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:58 PM Mark Vitale wrote:
> >>> (I'm struggling to get AFS to go over the 50MB/s, i.e. half a GigaBit,
> >>> bandwidth... My target is to saturate a full GigaBit link...)
> >
> > Perhaps you know: what is the maximum
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 2:38 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:30 PM Mark Vitale wrote:
>> But now on more careful reading, I see this only applies when -dcache has
>> not been explicitly specified.
>> (Which, to be fair, is the normal case).
>
> Thanks for the
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:30 PM Mark Vitale wrote:
> But now on more careful reading, I see this only applies when -dcache has not
> been explicitly specified.
> (Which, to be fair, is the normal case).
Thanks for the insight.
> > (I'm struggling to get AFS to go over the 50MB/s, i.e. half a
Ciprian,
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:11 PM Mark Vitale wrote:
>> The -dcache option for a disk-based cache does set the number of dcaches in
>> memory.
>> It has a minimum value of 2000 and max of 1.
>
>
> Is the 100K
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:19 PM Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
>> (B) Using `-files` and `-chunksize` so that their product is larger
>> than `-blocks` means that the cache can hold up to as many `-files`
>> actual AFS files,
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:11 PM Mark Vitale wrote:
> The -dcache option for a disk-based cache does set the number of dcaches in
> memory.
> It has a minimum value of 2000 and max of 1.
Is the 100K maximum a hard limit imposed in code, or a
"best-practice"? (I've looked in a few places and
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
>
> I have two small questions about the cache management of `asfd`. (The
> documentation isn't very explicit.)
>
> (In both cases I'm speaking about disk-based cache.)
>
> (A) Using `-dcache 128` with a `-chunksize 10` (i.e.
Hi Ciprian,
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
> wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> I'm using OpenAFS on OpenSUSE, version 1.8.x (in fact 1.8.0 and 1.8.2
> on two nodes), and although the documentation for the `afsd` daemon
> states for `files_per_subdir` that:
>
>
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:19 PM Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
> (B) Using `-files` and `-chunksize` so that their product is larger
> than `-blocks` means that the cache can hold up to as many `-files`
> actual AFS files, but their total size can't be larger than `-blocks`?
> (I.e. if one has a
I have two small questions about the cache management of `asfd`. (The
documentation isn't very explicit.)
(In both cases I'm speaking about disk-based cache.)
(A) Using `-dcache 128` with a `-chunksize 10` (i.e. 1MiB) for a
disk-based cache, would actually allocate 128 MiB from kernel memory
Hello all!
I'm using OpenAFS on OpenSUSE, version 1.8.x (in fact 1.8.0 and 1.8.2
on two nodes), and although the documentation for the `afsd` daemon
states for `files_per_subdir` that:
files_per_subdir -- Limits the number of cache files in each
subdirectory of the cache directory. The value
I understand that for large deployment the `bos` is useful because it
allows administering the AFS services remotely without resorting to
SSH.
However for small deployments (like for example a single server) could
it be removed completely and letting the services be started without
it? (Like for
19 matches
Mail list logo
