On Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:05:25 PM -0400 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'm not aware of any actual experimentation that's been done in that area,
but I'm going to guess that it doesn't make a lot of difference. The bulk
of the work in cloning, dumping, and restoring volumes is per-vnode, and
the bulk of the actual data in a volume dump consists of a per-vnode
component plus, of course, the actual data dumped. The amount of constant
work and data is relatively small.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
