On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:16 AM, Christopher Mason wrote:
Hello.
...
Minimum file size (overhead): FAQ says 1k file occupies 1k, but
doesn't address overhead.
That's minimal and heavily depends on you directory structure. But
not noticeable at all.
I said depends on your structure since you have mount points, ACLs
etc. to handle on the fileserver. I never heard anybody complain
about that in the past. (whatever that now means to you ...)
Maximum file size: 2GB??? (is this still true?)
<https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2002-November/
007006.html>
The release fileservers do have this limit.
If you're compiling the fileservers yourselves you can switch the
large file support on, but that's experimantal AFAIK.
Maximum files in a directory: The limit depends on the length of
the filenames; if they are all sufficiently short, the limit is
around 64K.
This one's correct. ;-)
Maximum files in a volume:
Maximum size of a volume: 4TB
<https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2004-November/
015530.html>
This would be approximately accurate as well (AFAIK it's not exactly
4TB but somewhere in that area, never cared about the accurate
number, though :-) )
Number of servers for a read/write volume: 1 (by design)
YES.
Maximum number of servers for a read only volume:
Maximum size of a partition:
(OS limited? -- linux = 9TB?)
OS limited since the partition is on a file system on your fileserver.
(Be aware that there needs to be a special
compile-time option enabled to support blockdevices larger
2TB.<https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2005-April/
017336.html>)
Can't comment on that since I never had such devices :-)
Maximum cache size:
My experience is that you want your client cache to be at least as
large as the largest files you are using. Performance on files that
won't fit entirely in the cache is terrible.
... Setting cache size is a bit of a black art.
<https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2005-April/
017552.html>
Yes, cache size and parameters for the clients is more like a
religion :-)
Total size of largest known AFS installation:
Now here i think you won't get any "proud and cocky" answer since the
AFS guys are not running around with the number of TBs around their
neck for every body to know. :-)
BTW, if you're using AFS it's the same way of handling data whether
you handle 2.1GB or 200TB.
Can an AFS volume be grown in size? Shrunk in size? While online?
They do that all by themselves since a volume is not a "physical
unit" but an administrative one.
Horst
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
