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 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 to "da" and not recommend to
> start with anything old. For obvious reasons, all
> However is it still "safe" and "advised" (outside of these
> disadvantages) to run the old `fileserver` component?
I would recommend everyone to migrate to "da" and not recommend to
start with anything old. For obvious reasons, all the big
installations will migrate to "da" and you don't want
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 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 Cipr
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!
> &
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 from the documentation that the main difference between
> `
Hello all!
I understand from the documentation that the main difference between
`dafileserver` and `fileserver` is the "on-demand-attach" of volumes.
However I wonder if there are other advantages / differences between
the two, especially with regard to:
* performance -- is `dafileserver` more
11 matches
Mail list logo
