[OpenAFS] Best practice: inode or namei fileserver?

Hartmut Reuter reuter@rzg.mpg.de
Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:04:37 +0100

Jason Edgecombe wrote:
> Hi all,
> We are currently running inode-based fileservers on solaris 9.
> I stumbled across the fact that solaris 9 -9/05HW makes logging the
> default on UFS. I know that the AFS finode-based fileserver cannot work
> with a logging filesystem.
> Does the namei filesystem play nice with logging filesystems?

> Going forward, which format is recommended, inode or namei?

Namei has another advantage: if you salvage a single volume it's not 
necessary to read all inodes, but only those pseudo-inodes (file names)
under the subdirectory belonging to the volume group. This is much faster.

An overhead traversing the AFSIDat-tree to open a file certainly exists, 
but I suppose it is neglectible compared to the advantages.

> I'm wondering if I should slowly migrate to namei.
> Thanks,
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info

Hartmut Reuter                           e-mail reuter@rzg.mpg.de
					   phone +49-89-3299-1328
RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching)               fax   +49-89-3299-1301
Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the
Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)