[OpenAFS] Transitioning from IBM Transarc to OpenAFS Help
Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:43:33 -0500
We migrated from AIX/Transarc to Linux/OpenAFS about 2 years ago. I
chose method 1 to make a gradual transition over the course of a
summer. For a few weeks I had a mixed cell with both platforms in
production. I did not have any problems with database corruption and
all DB and file servers talked to each other without incident.
Creating a new cell would have caused more problems for the user base.
The migration went easily to the 1.2 .x version series. I can't speak
about any later release.
John Harris wrote:
> Greetings OpenAFS Community,
> We are *finally* going to transition our production AFS cells from IBM
> Transarc to the OpenAFS code base.
> I have lots of questions and discussion points and am not sure if this
> is the appropriate forum to do it in, so I'd first like pointers on
> where to place it. I also hope to contact other
> companies/universities that have made the transition to get some
> Unfortunately, we are running on majorly patched IBM code; meaning the
> code that branched to OpenAFS a number of years ago has been patched
> several times on proprietary needs of IBM's customers. We aren't
> running anything different than their *latest* release version and
> I've gathered enough info to know that the problems they patched have
> already been addressed in OpenAFS, but I assume there are major
> differences now even in the kernel module...?
> Here, we are debating about a couple of ways to transition:
> 1) The communications-type folks, you know, the ones who don't
> actually do any of the work, want to keep the same cell name and just
> do a one-time massive integration come cut-over day. They hope to mix
> and match IBM servers (database and fileservers) and OpenAFS servers
> (ie: just added OpenAFS servers and rotate the IBM ones out). To me,
> this just screams of database corruption and problems; the technical
> side of our house is really against this (we have enough problems with
> running on one code-base) for various reasons, but it would be
> quickest way. Before I go testing this for weeks on end, does this
> community have any opinions on it.
> 2) The technical-type folks here want to start over with a new cell
> name so we can slowly transition our production clients over one at a
> time, have the old cell running for easy cut-back, take the time in
> the new cell to design the layout and permission scheme the correct
> way (like no individuals on ACLs, etc.), etc.
> This is slower but safer and easier in my opinion. We have lots to
> do, like transitioning from the afs4-krb database and K5, moving to
> newer hardware, etc.
> I'd really like some feedback, either in the appropriate forum or
> personally, on experiences or thoughts. There isn't a lot publicly
> out there on a big transition like this.
> John Harris
> University of California, Davis
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
veritatis simplex oratio est
Staff Systems Programmer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
phone: 518 276-6415 fax: 518 276-2809