On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote: > Rich Sudlow 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. > > Would enabling "fs storebehind" in AFS with a large value give a better > comparison to NFS with caching?
No. attribute caching without coherency applies to reads also. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
