Steve Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 16, 2006, at 2:15 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 16, 2006 02:06:22 PM -0400 Derrick J Brashear >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 May 2006, John W. Sopko Jr. wrote: >>> >>>> .... Is the recommendation still >>>> 8GB for OpenAFS 1.4.1? Are there any notes on maximum volume >>>> and file sizes? Thanks for the info. >>> >>> You'll be sad if you ever need to move it unless you have fast >>> stuff all >>> around. >> >> You'll be sad because big volumes take a long time to move. >> You'll be more sad if the volume consists of a very large number of >> small files, rather than a few large files. If it's going to be >> lots of little files, you should encourage the user to structure >> his data so that multiple volumes can be used. > > Has anyone done any comparisons to determine if the time to move a > single > large volume is significantly different than the time to move the > equivalent files in smaller volumes? I'm doing some testing, and may > give this a shot. > (And, before anybody jumps in to point out the advantages of being > able to deal with things that come in smaller chunks: yes, I know > that. I just want to know if you more more than an additive penalty > for the large volume vs the volume set.)
I've noticed that the larger volumes are locked for more time during clone and delete operations. This may or may not be a problem in your environment though. I find it rather annoying to be denied access to files for more than 30 seconds and some of our larger volumes take minutes to clone. <<CDC _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
