[OpenAFS] Extremely poor write performance.

[Rubino Geiß]

> Also, it is not enought to bump up the number of clients,
> you also have to do repeat access to the same data for
> the benefits of the AFS cache to show. This is likely
> to be most apparent for read access.

Yes and no. It depends on the kind of application that you are considering
as critical. As I stated in a other mail -- deleting and creating many small
files in short succession is critical to _US_.


> I would like to see how the Andrew Benchmark runs on
> today's hardware/software compared to the results we
> saw from a few years ago.
> 
> Yes, you are correct, there is all sorts of tuning you could
> do to tweak up the performance. For example, using
> AFS RAM cache instead of disk cache would signifigantly
> improve the stats.

I'll try that. What else can matter?

> 
> There are other factors which are difficult to include
> but give AFS the edge over NFS. For example, if your AFS
> cell has 3 (or more) dedicated AFS database servers then
> you have distributed the processing load from all clients 
> across those database servers. This is better than having a 
> single database server (and also more reliable).

We do have 3 db servers and 5 fileservers, so this cant be a cure for us.

Thanx, Ruby