Is this what you need?
PKGINST: SUNWsan
NAME: SAN Foundation Kit
CATEGORY: system
ARCH: sparc
VERSION: 1.0
BASEDIR: /
VENDOR: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
DESC: This package provides a support for the SAN Foundation Kit.
PSTAMP: sanserve-a20031029172438
INSTDATE: Jan 15 2008 10:37
HOTLINE: Please contact your local service provider
STATUS: completely installed
FILES: 22 installed pathnames
4 shared pathnames
1 linked files
11 directories
2 executables
239 blocks used (approx)
Running Solaris 9 09/05HW Sparc with Sun SAN foundation.
Jason
Kim Kimball wrote:
Hi Jason,
Thanks!
Can you tell me which flavor of SAN you're using?
Kim
Jason Edgecombe wrote:
Robert Banz wrote:
AFS can't really cause "san issues" in that it's just another
application using your filesystem. In some cases, it can be quite a
heavy user of such, but since its only interacting through the fs,
its not going to know anything about your underlying storage fabric,
or have any way of targeting it for any more badness than any other
filesystem user.
One of the big differences that would effect the filesystem IO load
that occurred between 1.4.1 & 1.4.6 was the removal functions that
made copious fsync operations. These operations were called in
fileserver/volserver functions that modified various in-volume
structures, specifically file creations and deletions, and would
lead to rather underwhelming performance when doing vos restores,
deleting, or copying large file trees. In many configurations, this
causes the OS to pass on a call to the underlying storage to verify
that all changes written have been written to *disk*, causing the
storage controller to flush its write cache. Since this defeats
many of the benefits (wrt I/O scheduling) on your storage hardware
of having a cache, this could lead to overloaded storage.
Some storage devices have the option to ignore these calls from
devices, assuming your write cache is reliable.
Under UFS, I would suggest that you'd be running in 'logging' mode
when using the namei fileserver on Solaris, as yes, fsck is rather
horrible to run. Performance on reasonably recent versions of ZFS
were quite acceptable as well.
I can confirm Robert's observations. I recently tested openafs 1.4.1
inode vs 1.4.6 namei on solaris 9 sparc with a Sun Storedge 3511
Expansion tray fibre channel device. The difference is stagerring
with vos move and such. We have been using the 1.4.6 namei config on
a SAN for a few months now with no issues.
Jason
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
