Does DFS take a huge performance hit due to its support of byte-level locking? Or since DFS was designed from the ground up with byte-level locking in mind, it doesn't take a hit. I realize DFS is a totally different beast then AFS. It is the only file system with similiar capabilities to AFS that supports byte-level locking that I can think of.
Cheers, Thomas Vincent On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 08:17 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > Not with the current protocol. That sort of capability would require > block-level callbacks and data version tracking, which could quickly get > messy. I'm not saying its impossible, but it would require considerable > additional work, and might turn out to impact performance too much. > >> I guess what that implies is that the stage 1 (client side only >> upgradable locks) are the best that we can do without completely >> changing the way afs works. That would be an improvement - at least >> apps >> on the same box can have fully functional locking support. > > Without a significant protocol change, yes, stage 1 is the best we can > do. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
