--On Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:14:10 AM -0500 Chas Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Derrick J Br
> ashear writes:
>>> possible benefit to bypassing the cache completely for large files (i.e.
>>
>> Then you've either made a decision for too many people, or you need an
>> interface to pick and choose what files will be cached and what won't.
>> The problem with allowing per-file selection of this is you've then
>> made end users "know" they're using AFS and deal with it if the default
>> is not what they want. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
>
> i am not reccomending 'cache bypass' for everyone. if we ever get the
> mods i certainly wouldnt ask for it to be placed into openafs. its just
> something we thought about doing. getting >1G files from afs is very very
> slow through the cache manager. possibly something like 'afs ftp' might
> be an easier solution though. i.e. a direct read from the fileserver at
> the userspace level.
I don't know if John T Kohl is reading, but I was under the impression that
his "vicegrips" client was basically that. Such a thing wouldn't be hard in
any case.
-D
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/openafs-devel
