(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Sun, 9 May 1999, Peter J. Braam wrote: > Michael, > > This is per server -- so it's NOT a good thing. > > We will be able to beef things up, but it will be really hard to get > boyond memory mapping 2G, which only gives something like an 80GB file > server. At this size I'm expecting other problems to start cropping up. > > AFS does (I think) not have this limit. > > I suspect a major change to deal with large server sizes will have to > come to the agenda; it's doable but a lot of work. > > - Peter - > > You are correct that AFS is not limited on fileserver sizing. We run quite a few fileservers with 4 to 6 25 gig partitions. The performance bottleneck we see is actually with our backups, and allowing a full backup to complete within 24 hours over the network. Don't forget to size your whole installation when thinking about large fileservers, often times the limitations occur in another component, but you don't think about it until it's too late. One drawback with AFS is the physical size of individual files. The limitation there is 2 gig I believe. DFS 2.2 fixes this by allowing file sizes as large as a single aggregate(partition in AFS) is. So, a fileserver comparable to the above description could have 4 25 gig files. Is this type of performance capability something the Coda developers believe is possible in the future, or have plans not progressed that far to date? Is there a wishlist document somewhere, so we can see what is proposed for the finished product(if there is such a thing as 'finished')? I would like to hear some of the developers' opinions on where the project is leading. Thanks, -MattReceived on 1999-05-12 14:51:08