[OpenAFS] Evaluating OpenAFS
Tue, 17 May 2011 21:26:44 +0200
On May 17, 2011, at 19:31 , Russ Allbery wrote:
> Simon Wilkinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> The version question is a tricky one. You should definitely avoid the
>> 1.5 series - this was a development series which has now been superseded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 this, 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 latest 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 present. If you are evaluating performance, or features, then the 1.6
>> prereleases (probably starting with pre6 when it appears) are the best
>> place to look,
> If you're willing to test on Debian unstable, the version of the OpenAFS
> packages currently in Debian unstable should be close to what will show up
> as 1.6.0pre6 (and has the data corruption bug already fixed).
If the issue is what 4d3e83e86abd0bb6f70e50f208c63bcc248c6673 fixes (?), I
wouldn't call that a data corruption bug. It seems like an ordinary bug in
the client, preventing it from retrieving the true content of certain files
stored safely and correctly on the fileserver.
Only if files written without the client receiving any error return end up
corrupted on the fileserver due to a bug in the code, with no other component
(RAM, NICs, CPUs, buses, ...) to blame, I'd talk of a data corruption bug.
15738 Zeuthen, Germany