[OpenAFS] why afs backup is so poorly supported (Was: Backup AFS with BackupPC?)

chas williams - CONTRACTOR chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil
Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:17:09 -0400

In message <x34pue5u4w.fsf_-_@nowhere.com>,Adam Megacz writes:
>Same argument applies to journalling technologies.  AFS essentially
>creates a filesystem-within-a-filesystem which *still* doesn't have
>even the most basic journalling capabilities -- five years after they
>became a standard feature on server OSes.  Ditto for redundant
>superblocks (way more than five years on that one).  And efficient
>support for small files (think RieserFS as backing-store for any other
>network fs).

afs provides copy on write.  i dont know very many (zfs is the only one
that comes to mind) that implement this feature natively.

afs's namei based filesystem could provide a more familiar layout
of the files.  however, i suspect the designers choose the current
structure to avoid creating single directories with huge numbers of
files.  most filesystems dont handle this well.