On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Paul Robins wrote:
You're not talking nonsense at all. It's exactly the kind of
statement I was provoking.
(Just the term 'node' is from cluster terminology not AFS, but OK.
AFS doesn't care about nodes, there are only volumes on
fileservers) :-)
Sorry yes, i originally approached this from a clustering
perspective, looking at GFS etc.
I don't really recommend that conversion of RO volumes to RWs for
backups. If you search the archives for that topic you'll find
some of my old statements regarding that.
IIRC I said something like: use that only if your disk is gone,
like in 'the dog eat your harddisk'. (I didn't look it up ... ;-) )
Well it's more about redundancy, in a pinch I can deal without
having to do any sort of RAID5 network rubbish because 180 gig is
more than sufficient. Backups are done offsite anyway and
performance isn't a major issue. This is used to support a 24/7
callcentre, and the most important thing is that if a disk were to
fail and take a machine down, we could bring up a replacement with
as close to identical data as is possible.
and transfer a lot of data over the network to those fileserver(s),
This isn't a major issue, the machines were originally specced to
have a second (gigabit) network card connected to their own gigabit
switch / VLAN.
I suppose I should have just stated my requirements originally and
dispensed with all my 'smart ideas' :)
I'm still not sure, I could clarify ...
If you have just one fileserver, AFS IMHO doesn't really make sense.
Make an NFS server of this single fileserver or a samba server if you
have windows boxes to talk to.
There is no 'distribution' with one fileserver, right?
Horst
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
