Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 17:10, Rich Sudlow <[email protected]> wrote:
Esther Filderman wrote:
To some degree, OpenAFS will always write slower than standard NFS,
because AFS is actually making sure it's not writing crap. NFS will
happily write stuff at blazingly fast speeds, not caring whether the
data it writes is sane or corrupted.
The reason NFS appears to be faster is because you're not doing an
apple - apples comparision - if you were you would have to turn off
attribute caching on NFS - at that point you'd find that performance
is essentially equal
Why would you turn off attribute caching? That is a part of NFS.
You're correct you generally wouldn't - But if you are truly comparing
NFS and OpenAFS you would need to.
Why would attribute caching make the test be an apples - oranges comparison?
Because you have no cache coherancy on NFS to verify that data is
propogated out and seen simultaneously on multiple clients
(V2 & 3) whereas with OpenAFS that cache coherancy is there.
Rich
--
Rich Sudlow
University of Notre Dame
Center for Research Computing
128 Information Technology Center
PO Box 539
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539
(574) 631-7258 office phone
(574) 631-9283 office fax
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
