Performance clearly depends on your data usage scheme... If your data is write-once-read-many, then AFS may actually help you quite a lot. In our environment (identical data is read approximately 5 times, but written only once) average performance for applications is better than NFS by a factor of 1.5-2. If your application does not read any data, but only produces new data, then NFS is clearly faster.
Volkmar On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Faeandar wrote: > AFS is great at access control and availability but it is horrid on > performance. Read is fine if you are already cached on the client but > we've seen a 20X performance difference between reading from AFS > servers and NFS servers (rsync'ing data). > > So while AFS would solve my access control issue it would kill our > ability to get work done. > > You have provided good information though, thanks. > > ~F > ________________________________________________ > Kerberos mailing list [email protected] > https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos > -- Volkmar Glauche - Department of Neurology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Universitaetsklinikum Freiburg Phone 49(0)761-270-5331 Breisacher Str. 64 Fax 49(0)761-270-5416 79106 Freiburg http://fbi.uniklinik-freiburg.de/ ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
