Re: [gentoo-user] Re: File system testing

[J. Roeleveld]

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 09:05:09 PM James wrote:
> J. Roeleveld <joost <at> antarean.org> writes:
> > AFS has caching and can survive temporary disappearance of the
server.
>
> Excellent for low bandwidth connections. Most DFS have mechanisms to
> deal with transient failures, but not as generaous on the time-scale
> as AFS. I believe, if I recall correctly, these hi-latency, low bandwith
> recovery mechanism keen design paramters, at least bake in the
> CMU develop cycples, for AFS?
>
> While attractive  for your situation, these features might actually
> be detrimental to a hi_performance distributed cluster's needs for
> a DFS?

I tend to agree. I'm not sure how up-to-date AFS is, but from re-reading the 
wikipedia pages, it sounds like what I need. Provided I can get it to work 
together with Samba. I need to allow MS Windows laptops access to the 
files on the remote location.

> > For me, I need to be able to provide Samba filesharing on top of that
> > layer on 2 different locations as I don't  see the network bandwidth to
> > be sufficient for normal operations. (ADSL uplinks tend to be dead
slow)
>
> Yea, I'm not going to be testing OpenAFS for my needs, unless I read
> some compelling publish data on it's applicability to high end
> clusters best choice as a DFS.....

I wouldn't either.

> It's probably great for SETI etc etc.

Doubtful :)

Did you see the following wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems

It contains a nice long list of various distributed, clustered,.... filesystems.
I just miss an indication on how well these are still supported and on which 
OSs these (can) work.

--
Joost