On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 20:45, Rich Sudlow <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
If your existing application is working fine on NFS with attribute caching you should _not_ turn it off when you are comparing to AFS. The application can clearly work with the attribute cache. (The attribute cache is normally not a problem) In fact the test would be misleading if you did turn the cache off. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
