On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 12:16:49AM -0500, Christopher Mason wrote: > Minimum file size (overhead): FAQ says 1k file occupies 1k, but > doesn't address overhead.
Others mentioned this but just so it's entirely clear, the file's size on disk is dependent on the underlying filesystem used on the server, whatever its limits on block size, etc. If you were running linux and had lots and lots of small files and cared more about space utilization than best possible i/o speed, you might want to use reiserfs with tail packing turned on. > Maximum size of a partition: > (OS limited? -- linux = 9TB?) Linux with 2.6 kernels and the appropriate devices can support very large filesystems. I've got one filesystem that is ~11TB and if i recall correctly the actual limit is much larger. That said, this was pretty bleeding edge when i set it up a few months ago, i ran into problems with RAID firmware, fibre channel card's linux driver, and the linux LVM. I should add that this system is *not* an AFS server, i'm talking only about linux partition & filesystem sizes. > Total size of largest known AFS installation: As others have mentioned it's hard to say what exactly constitutes the largest installation. I don't know raw numbers but AFS is in use at some large universities. umich has about 38,000 students, and at least 10,000 faculty & staff. Each of those people qualifies for an AFS home directory as part of a basic computing offering. I don't know how many of them actually use one, or how many terabytes of disk they have online, but it's pretty darn big. Depending on the application you are looking at, you should be careful that AFS meets your performance needs. AFS is really good at being distributed and scalable and secure. It's not as good at being super fast. danno -- dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2 734/352-4953 office 734/834-7224 mobile _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
