Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I have to admit I'm a little curious why you switched from inode to
namei on a Solaris server...
A little bit off-topic:
Admittedly I frowned myself for years at voices promoting the use of
the namei fileserver in favour of the inode one, until...
on the inode fileserver the inc(), dec() operations always translate
into real I/Os. You cannot do a lot such operations per second, at
least I did not find out how.
This means that cloning (and therefore moving, backing up, ...)
volumes is intrinsically slow. With the namei fileserver the speedup
is tremendous once you group the intervening fsyncs(). This is
relevant for operating a service where people think in volumes of
several hundred thousand files. I am still frowning at the otherwise
unproductive overhead the namei fileserver induces at every operation.
Hence only our 1.2.X Solaris servers are still running the inode
fileserver, the 1.4.X were switched to namei with up to now (touch
wood) no ill effects.
Now, strictly speaking this is an argument in favour of the link count
file that the namei fileserver uses instead of using the inode
reference counts. I could well imagine the same technique in the inode
fileserver.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rainer Toebbicke
European Laboratory for Particle Physics(CERN) - Geneva, Switzerland
Phone: +41 22 767 8985 Fax: +41 22 767 7155
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
