Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:06:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Arne "Wörner" <arne_woerner@yahoo.com> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: distributed filesystems Message-ID: <75116.30487.qm@web30310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <cone.1178056153.379466.25056.5001@35st.simplicato.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> wrote: > Greg Troxel writes: > > Coda (http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu/) works well on NetBSD-current, in > > which I just fixed the kernel module to conform to updated/simplified > .. > > There's also arla (afs working client, and server that I'm not sure of > > the status). > >From a performance perspective would you recommend Coda or Arla? > > Are distributed filesystems fast enough to handle something like a mailstore > for a busy Imap/pop3 server? > Depends... Since Imap/pop3 sounds like that services r limited in bandwidth by network bandwidth, u just have to care that the network connection between the file servers is fast enough. Then u should just have a little delay (when the data is sent a second time through the network) but no contention. Theoretically: If the fs does lazy updates (just getting a lock on another server and transfering the data later from a local mirror -- like described earlier in a change request for gmirror), it can do updates as fast as it can transfer data to the other server. Reading should be a lot faster, if the write-locks r handled intelligently. -Arne __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?75116.30487.qm>