(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
Hi, Reading though the mailing list, it became obvious that many are concerned about the venus cache size. There seemed to be unanimity about the fact that one needed a larger venus cache than the file being manipulated under /coda. My previous mail on the subject claimed that one could open a 20MB file with a 10MB cache. Here is a description of the corroborating experiment: - A single client running Linux RH 5.2, - Two Servers RH 6.0, - One of the servers, called gilgamesh, is old (486 66Mhz, 16MB, 700MB) - The other server, called torino, is much faster (AMD K6, 128MB, 13GB) - Client configured with 10MB of venus cache, two servers. - Client *does not* do hoarding. I issued the command, > dd if=/dev/zero of=/coda/zero bs=1024 count=20000 while both servers were up. I observed that the client would contact both servers. Many packets were exchanged, presumably 20MB of zeroes. However, I cannot really tell if the servers were contacted in turn or in parallel. I issued the command, > filcon parition -s torino -c napoli where torino is the faster server, and napoli is the client. This disconnects torino and napoli. Other connections are not affected. BTW, isn't filcon an open invitation for denial-of-service attack? Then, I issued the "dd" command exactly as previously. I observed that the client talks to "gilgamesh", the older server. Interestingly enough, the two servers did not seem to talk to each other. However, when I did a "ls -la /coda" on the client, there was intense activity between the two servers, presumably synchronizing. In both cases, the file /coda/zero was there. The client did not crash and /coda remained accessible. There were no apparent error conditions either. AFAICT, strongly connected clients (and no hoarding) can manipulate files of any size independently of cache size. CekiReceived on 1999-10-06 05:27:03