[OpenAFS] openafs upgrade from 1.4.1 to 1.5.7
Derrick Brashear
shadow@gmail.com
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:24:35 -0500
------=_Part_4369_12615474.1196281475091
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Nov 28, 2007 3:20 PM, Jerry Normandin <Jerry.Normandin@dafca.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm working on solving an AFS issue that has been a problem at my
> employer before I arrived here. Performance in general has been poor, much
> slower than NFS. I ran bonnie++ to check this out and apparently read/write
> performance was not bad, it was file creation, deletion and renaming that
> took forever.
>
What's the underlying filesystem? AFS passes through the semantics of
metadata operations of the underlying filesystem, and ext* for instance is
poor at it.
> Looking further this was do to the fact when transactions like this are
> done, it invalidates the cache, so the filesystem must be reread. When you
> are in a software development environment this is a problem. Engineers
> checking out an entire trunk to their AFS home would take FOREVER. So
> digging further it appears that code Has been added to improve performance.
>
>
Yes.
> We are running an old version of AFS.. 1.4.1. Are there any
> configuration differences between 1.4.1 and 1.5.7?
>
Lots. Of course, we recommend 1.4.5, and not some random 1.5, especially not
an old one. 1.5.7 is similarly old to 1.4.1.
> Is there a FAQ posted regarding the upgrade?
>
"Replace the binaries and restart"
> Can I have a mixed environment of versions?
>
Unless you have pts supergroups enabled, yes, though there is a pending bug
regarding moving volumes between current 1.5.x and 1.4.x.
>
------=_Part_4369_12615474.1196281475091
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 28, 2007 3:20 PM, Jerry Normandin <<a href="mailto:Jerry.Normandin@dafca.com">Jerry.Normandin@dafca.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Hello</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> I'm working on solving an AFS issue that has been a
problem at my employer before I arrived here. Performance in general has been poor,
much slower than NFS. I ran bonnie++ to check this out and apparently
read/write performance was not bad, it was file creation, deletion and renaming
that took forever. </span></font></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br>What's the underlying filesystem? AFS passes through the semantics of metadata operations of the underlying filesystem, and ext* for instance is poor at it.
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">
Looking further this was do to the fact when transactions
like this are done, it invalidates the cache, so the filesystem must be
reread. When you are in a software development environment this is a problem.
Engineers checking out an entire trunk to their AFS home would take FOREVER.
So digging further it appears that code Has been added to improve performance.
</span></font></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Yes. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">We are running an old version of AFS.. 1.4.1. Are there any configuration
differences between 1.4.1 and 1.5.7?</span></font></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Lots. Of course, we recommend 1.4.5, and not some random 1.5, especially not an old one. 1.5.7 is similarly old to 1.4.1.<br> <br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">
</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Is there a FAQ posted regarding the upgrade? </span></font></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br>"Replace the binaries and restart"
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">
Can I have a
mixed environment of versions? </span></font></p></div></div></blockquote><div>Unless you have pts supergroups enabled, yes, though there is a pending bug regarding moving volumes between current 1.5.x and 1.4.x. <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></font></p>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_4369_12615474.1196281475091--