[OpenAFS] Re: afs vs nfs

Dan Pritts danno@internet2.edu
Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:38:29 -0500

I'm thinking more of situations where you want to access the filesystem
data for two different access methods, say, local and NFS or NFS and SMB.

others have basically said "don't do that" and they have good reasons,
however, in many situations (typically small installations) it's
reasonable and expedient.  

another big thing that it gives you is that backing up the filesystem
is possible with whatever backup system you want, without having to use
AFS-aware tools.

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18:25PM -0800, lamont@scriptkiddie.org wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dan Pritts wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:50:26PM -0800, lamont@scriptkiddie.org wrote:
> >>structure.  Please don't suggest changing this if you don't understand how
> >>it affects the streaming vs. seeking performance of operations.  The fact
> >>that AFS stores data in a serialized format in managable chunks is a
> >>*HUGE* win.
> >
> >I never suggested changing it.  I merely stated that it was a big
> >difference between AFS & NFS, and for some situations, it could be
> >considered a disadvantage.
> I still don't see the situations where its a big disadvantage.  The format 
> of an AFS volume file is just as opaque to me as an umounted filesystem 
> block device.  If its get to the point where I'm digging through /dev/sda1 
> trying to fix something on the filesystem I'm much better off wiping the 
> system, reinstalling and recovering from backups if I need to.  Same goes 
> for AFS.  I can't think of any use cases of ripping apart the on-disk 
> format of a volume that aren't better addressed through some other tactic 
> that is less of a waste of my time.

dan pritts - systems administrator - internet2
734/352-4953 office        734/834-7224 mobile