We migrated from AIX/Transarc to Linux/OpenAFS about 2 years ago. I
chose method 1 to make a gradual transition over the course of a
summer. For a few weeks I had a mixed cell with both platforms in
production. I did not have any problems with database corruption and
all DB and file servers talked to each other without incident.
Creating a new cell would have caused more problems for the user base.
The migration went easily to the 1.2 .x version series. I can't speak
about any later release.
John Harris wrote:
Greetings OpenAFS Community,
We are *finally* going to transition our production AFS cells from IBM
Transarc to the OpenAFS code base.
I have lots of questions and discussion points and am not sure if this
is the appropriate forum to do it in, so I'd first like pointers on
where to place it. I also hope to contact other
companies/universities that have made the transition to get some
pointers.
Unfortunately, we are running on majorly patched IBM code; meaning the
code that branched to OpenAFS a number of years ago has been patched
several times on proprietary needs of IBM's customers. We aren't
running anything different than their *latest* release version and
I've gathered enough info to know that the problems they patched have
already been addressed in OpenAFS, but I assume there are major
differences now even in the kernel module...?
Here, we are debating about a couple of ways to transition:
1) The communications-type folks, you know, the ones who don't
actually do any of the work, want to keep the same cell name and just
do a one-time massive integration come cut-over day. They hope to mix
and match IBM servers (database and fileservers) and OpenAFS servers
(ie: just added OpenAFS servers and rotate the IBM ones out). To me,
this just screams of database corruption and problems; the technical
side of our house is really against this (we have enough problems with
running on one code-base) for various reasons, but it would be
quickest way. Before I go testing this for weeks on end, does this
community have any opinions on it.
2) The technical-type folks here want to start over with a new cell
name so we can slowly transition our production clients over one at a
time, have the old cell running for easy cut-back, take the time in
the new cell to design the layout and permission scheme the correct
way (like no individuals on ACLs, etc.), etc.
This is slower but safer and easier in my opinion. We have lots to
do, like transitioning from the afs4-krb database and K5, moving to
newer hardware, etc.
I'd really like some feedback, either in the appropriate forum or
personally, on experiences or thoughts. There isn't a lot publicly
out there on a big transition like this.
Sincerely,
John Harris
University of California, Davis
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
--
veritatis simplex oratio est
Andrew Bacchi
Staff Systems Programmer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
phone: 518 276-6415 fax: 518 276-2809
http://www.rpi.edu/~bacchi/
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
