On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Booker Bense <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? You don't necessarily need VMs for this; at least, I'm not sure I see what benefit you get from separating these via VMs. You can (with I think 1.6.0 or a patch to 1.4.x) run these as chrooted fileservers on the same box, which would have less overhead. I think you could push it pretty far as far as resource utilization on the box goes, since the fileserver can scale down pretty small wrt memory usage. However, keep in mind that in the current implementation you need one IP per fileserver, which is the resource you may run out of first unless you have a lot of unused ipv4 space. This also doesn't help you much if the server is getting bogged down due to the I/O in servicing the relevant requests, unless you separate the user volumes physically. But for the simple (and presumably common) case of running out of fileserver threads or the fileserver not being mp-scalable, sure. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
