[OpenAFS] Evaluating OpenAFS

Simon Wilkinson sxw@inf.ed.ac.uk
Tue, 17 May 2011 11:54:02 +0100 

--Apple-Mail-1-904932770
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii



On 17 May 2011, at 10:54, Mike Legg <mike.legg@u-blox.com> wrote:
> We are looking to evaluate OpenAFS and were wondering where the best place=
 to get initial version / platform information.  We would like to test OpenA=
FS on CentOS or Debian but are not sure which versions of the application to=
 install and which OS is preferable.
>=20

Hi Mike,

Firstly, thanks for the interest in OpenAFS. Please feel free to ask here if=
 your evaluation throws up any issues or questions. There also tend to be fo=
lk on the #openafs IRC channel on freenode who can help with more immediate p=
roblems.

With regards to operating system, there are people running production OpenAFS=
 cells on both Debian and CentOS. With Debian, packages are distributed as p=
art of the operating system, CentOS packages are available from openafs.org.=
 I'd base your decision on what local experience is available for each syste=
m, rather than on OpenAFS's requirements.

The version question is a tricky one. You should definitely avoid the 1.5 se=
ries - this was a development series which has now been superseded by the 1.=
6 prereleases. Recommending one of 1.4 and 1.6 is harder. 1.4 is our "stable=
" series which is in widespread production use. 1.6 is designed to replace t=
his, but at present 1.6 is in the final stages of prerelease testing - so we=
're still shaking out the bugs. There is a known data corruption bug in the l=
atest 1.6 prerelease, for example. However, 1.6 is significantly faster than=
 1.4, and is what, I hope, we would be recommending to new installations in 6=
 months time.

If your are evaluating our stability, then 1.4 is probably your best bet at p=
resent. If you are evaluating performance, or features, then the 1.6 prerele=
ases (probably starting with pre6 when it appears) are the best place to loo=
k,

Cheers,

Simon.=

--Apple-Mail-1-904932770
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8

<html><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div><br><br>On 17 May 2011, at 10:54, Mike L=
egg &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike.legg@u-blox.com">mike.legg@u-blox.com</a>&gt;=
 wrote:</div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div class=3D"WordSection1"><p c=
lass=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Arial&q=
uot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">We are looking to evaluate OpenAFS and were won=
dering where the best place to get initial version / platform information. &=
nbsp;We would like to test OpenAFS on CentOS or Debian but are not sure whic=
h versions of the application to install and which OS is preferable. </span>=
</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Hi Mike,<div><br></div><div>Firs=
tly, thanks for the interest in OpenAFS. Please feel free to ask here if you=
r evaluation throws up any issues or questions. There also tend to be folk o=
n the #openafs IRC channel on freenode who can help with more immediate prob=
lems.</div><div><br></div><div>With regards to operating system, there are p=
eople running production OpenAFS cells on both Debian and CentOS. With Debia=
n, packages are distributed as part of the operating system, CentOS packages=
 are available from <a href=3D"http://openafs.org">openafs.org</a>. I'd base=
 your decision on what local experience is available for each system, rather=
 than on OpenAFS's requirements.</div><div><br></div><div>The version questi=
on is a tricky one. You should definitely avoid the 1.5 series - this was a d=
evelopment series which has now been superseded by the 1.6 prereleases. Reco=
mmending one of 1.4 and 1.6 is harder. 1.4 is our "stable" series which is i=
n widespread production use. 1.6 is designed to replace this, but at present=
 1.6 is in the final stages of prerelease testing - so we're still shaking o=
ut the bugs. There is a known data corruption bug in the latest 1.6 prerelea=
se, for example. However, 1.6 is significantly faster than 1.4, and is what,=
 I hope, we would be recommending to new installations in 6 months time.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>If your are evaluating our stability, then 1.4 is prob=
ably your best bet at present. If you are evaluating performance, or feature=
s, then the 1.6 prereleases (probably starting with pre6 when it appears) ar=
e the best place to look,</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Simon.</div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-1-904932770--