[OpenAFS-port-darwin] "disktool -r" causes Bus error from diskutil

[Ragnar Sundblad]

--On den 23 april 2003 18:55 +0200 Sebastian Hagedorn 
<Hagedorn@uni-koeln.de> wrote:

> Will do, I guess. Any comments on the differences between OpenAFS and
> Arla?

(Both are less than perfect? :-)

A major difference is that arla uses a daemon for most of the
work, the kernel module does very little. An upside of this is
that it is doable to debug the darn thing. People have suggested
that there should be a performance hit because of this, but some
tests have actually showed arla to have higher performance.

Arla (currently) always caches whole files and not parts thereof,
which makes for example the IE cache go very slow if you don't
do the tricks I mentioned to redirect it to local disk.
But that is less of a problem than at least I had feared, we have
even had video cutting labs where people used Final Cut with the
data in afs and using the arla client. It seems to have worked
reasonable well for those users. I must admit that I am somewhat
surprised, and would have been with the openafs client too.

There is a potential that we in arla will get working support
for Fake Mount Points ("fakemp"?), which will make afs mount
points just be faked directories until something really goes
down there and fiddles, which makes directory browsing in
directories with many mount points (like /afs/xx/home/...)
go much faster. The support is in there but there was some
problems, I haven't tried it for a while though. I haven't
heard anything about this for the openafs client.

Arla can also be started and stopped at will, good for mobile
("power") users.

The biggest problem that I can come to think of is that we have
had problems saving PDF from some adobe programs with Arla 0.35*,
but that seems to be fixed in the very-soon-to-be-released 0.36.

I still haven't found out if anyone is actively working on the
darwin port of openafs. I know for sure that there is occasional
work on and testing of arla for darwin.

We use arla on mac os x and openafs on solaris and linux
(and irix, but there are very few of those currently).
There isn't any particular reason for the mix other than legacy
and a little bit what platforms seems to be supported by which
implementation. (Other departments here run different mixes, for
example arla on linux.) We use the same home directories for all
unixy platforms. We have some 23000 user accounts and about
1000 client machines of which about 120 are macos x machines.
We currently don't use afs with windows 2k/xp.
I certainly do like that there are now _two_ afs clients for
mac os x, after all those years with mac os and none.

/ragge

---------------
Ragnar Sundblad, Systems engineer
Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden