I am sure I'm far from the first person to think of this and
there are some threads on the list about it. But has anyone
gone to the logical conclusion for user volumes and done
one VM , one server per user home volume ?
A batch system of any reasonable size is pretty much a built in
denial of service attack for the current OpenAFS implementation.
We work around this by user education and having a "jail server"
where we move user volumes that are getting hammered. But this
requires a lot of monitoring and admin shuffling, and badly
affects the user perception of AFS as a service.
Ideally, you'd like one mini-server per user volume and at least
the user would only shoot himself in the foot. I don't think this
is particularly practical even with current VM's, but how far can
you push it? And in particular when one VM goes south how does
that affect the rest of the VM's on the machine?
- Booker C. Bense
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
