URL: https://linuxfr.org/users/jal/journaux/systemes-de-fichiers-distribues Title: Systemes de fichiers distribues Authors: Loic Jaquemet Date: 2002年10月18日T17:02:26+02:00 Tags: Score: 0 faisez gaffe, c'est <blink>gros</blink> d'ailleurs on peut pas faire une intro de journal et un corps de journal separe ? Desole c'est en anglais .. et c'est de la prise de note ... There are many DFS in the wild but just a few are adapted . Afs and Coda are based on volume-sharing , which is a bit different than usual directory exports. IBM afs v 3.6 || openAfs || Arla Project ---------------------------------------- Andrew FileSytem initially developped at Carnegie Mellow University ( CMU ), then by TransArc, then IBM. IBM forked the developpement tree in 2000 to give birth to OpenAfs, open-source , free and widely used (IPL licence). Recently, the ArlA project implements Afs Protocol under GPL licence. At this time the client-side is supported, the server-side is undergoing heavy developpement. * AFS supports a maximum file size of 2 GB. * RPC based. * AFS supports a maximum volume size of 8 GB. In AFS version 3.5 and earlier, the limit is 2 GB. There is no limit on partition size other than the one imposed by the operating system. * less CPU usage than NFS 2-4 times less. definetly faster. great scalability. * RedHat 6.x & kernel 2.2.x, likely 2.4.x as well . * kerberos-like or kerberos-based security. * client caching , server replication * 'encrypted' file system & authentification... * a fileserver can be an authserver.. * used in many Universities ... designed to support 5,000-10,000 clients. IBM: * NFS/AFS translator to keep volumes accessible by nono-afs client. * underliying rcp , rsh ? http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/afs/docs/html/AdminGd/auagd002.htm#ToC_97 * rsh , inetd rcp, etc... remplacement... * tons of documentation * Arla is a free implementation . client-side, working on server-side. * Andrew II fs. * Solaris client&server * Linux Client&server Coda ---- Coda is a project also managed in CMU. it's aim is to be "better" than Afs in disconnected and weakly connected mode. * from Afs2. * RPC based. * no compagny support .. * security -> weak build-in or kerberos patch. weak == XOR scrambling, but the challenge protocol is secure. * namespace, volume-sharing, not directory. * Coda is a forked of version of AFS that support disconnected and weakly connected mode better then AFS. client point of view : * disconnected operations , caching ... * open() means copy() - based on file replication/caching. * small 10-200 Mo caching recommended. It seems that coda's users have larger cache area. * file to cache selectionnable ( hoarding ). * kernel support needed . very little patch, user-land application ( Venus ). * on update conflicts, user might need to resolve it manually.. server pov: * replication * consistency & transactions * DFS sysadm seems to prefers Coda to Afs. * Coda seems not to be scalable : The documentation says the RVM metadata needs to be 4% of the total shared size and it needs to be backed by virtual memory for that same quantity. * Linux client&server * Solaris client , no server Ficus, Rumor & ROAR ------------------- * designed at UCLA for large scale DFS. * peer-to-peer structure. * optimistic consistency approach. * intelligent resolvation of update conflicts. * Rumor user-space implementation is beta stage. * intelligent hoarding. * Really accurate for mobile and disconnected DFS. Sistina GFS 5.1 --------------- * used for cluster's filesystem on fast LAN. * not useable on WAN networks. DAFS ( www.dafscollaborative.org ) ---- * file sharing on SAN . Not for WAN . Sprite fs, part of SpriteOS --------------------------- * no caching on write-shared files. * spritely NFS ? * less CPU-eater than NFS. * superseeded by afs. xFS - A Wide Area Mass Storage File System ------------------------------------------ * wwwos93.ps * multi hierarchical & caching * -> IBM XFS ? no network issue and LAN-applicated. Amoeba ------- * Amoeba is a DOS, so there is a DFS in it.. * micro-kernel and stuff.. Odyssey ------- * application-aware. * need the application to be compliant. SFS @ sfs.net --- * secure, encrypted... * basicaly , it's a encrypted NFS. * relies on nfsv3. * easy to install. * a lack of pam modules ? SFS @ http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/sfs/ --- * secure, encrypted... * windows & Dos Lustre --------- * Another LAN-cluster dfs. LBFS - A Low-bandwidth Network File System -------------------------------------------- * Whole file Caching * NFS-like protocol. Over-NFS implementation. * Chunk SHA-1 calculation and comparaison. * Very _LOW_ bandwith utilisation. * SFS encryption support * Not for disconnected operations. * High disk load. * Need a Berkeley DB. * Probably high CPU load . * Less bandwith use than NFS,AFS... * Faster execution time. * Designed for Wan access. * 2 implementations a) with the xfs-arla client - caching, chunking but no authentification b) with the SFS client - authentification but no chunking, -small- freebsd nfs kernel patch, no linux patch . InterMezzo -------------- * pretty much like Coda. * AFS -> COda -> Intermezzo * Aiming disconnected ops. * GPL * Module-Compilated in Redhat 7.3 * More efficient than Coda is.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /