Thanks, this + Andrew's reply anwers my doubts. But for the sake of troubleshooting/adventure, I tried storebehind. To my surprise there wasn't much difference in the performance. I'm happy with that - keeps me away from dangerous temptations.
br, jukka > On 4/8/13 14:09 , "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>understanding the depths of afs - isn't the afs cache meant to be always >>in sync with the server, or is it possible (default?) for the >> applications >>to let go the data before it is confirmed to exist on the server? That >> is, >>if my configuration somehow forces the sync against the default, that >>could explain the poor performance. Sorry for asking stupid guestions... > > There is "fs storebehind" but I don't think that could explain this. > > > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
