[OpenAFS] humungous disk caches

[Bryan Bayerdorffer]

So far it seems to work though.  Curious.  I chose that mainly for its good 
performance with large numbers of files.

How about ext3?  Does the journaling get in the way at all?  Is ext2 the only 
safe option?

Derrick J Brashear wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Bryan Bayerdorffer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Setting aside the question of whether a huge cache is a good idea, what's the
>>largest client disk cache that can be configured?  I can get 16GB so far with
>>-chunksize 18 and -files 65536, but a chunksize of 19 causes accesses to /afs
>>to hang, as does doubling the number of files (cacheinfo is always set
>>correspondingly).
>>
>>What causes the hangs?  I'm using -dcache 3600 right now.  Does this value
>>correlate to the cache size in any way other than performance?
>>
>>The clients are openMosix cluster nodes, and the cache is on reiserfs with -o
>>nolog,notail.
> 
> 
> we don't support reiserfs for cache, period, since it doesn't bother to
> support unique inode numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
> 

-- 
  .. ..-. ..- -.-. .- -. .-. . .- -.. - .... .. ... --. . - .- .-.. .. ..-. .
Bryan Bayerdorffer        bryan@meatspace.net           bryan@spd.analog.com
                      (Wit's End Computation Center)       (Analog Devices)

"Man's chief occupation is extermination of other animals and his own
species, which, however, multiplies with such insistent rapidity as to
infest the whole habitable earth and Canada."