DSM Review, NFS, AFS: Difference between revisions
| No edit summary | |||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ==Questions== | ==Questions== | ||
| For the  | For the Protic paper, consider the following: | ||
| # What were the major problems addressed in DSM research following Kai Li's dissertation? | |||
| # Did these advances change the scope of environments and problems appropriate for DSM? | |||
| # Why aren't DSM systems commonly in use today? | |||
| For the NFS and AFS papers, consider these questions: | |||
| # What were the key design goals of NFS and AFS? | |||
| # How well did they achieve their goals? | |||
| # What are their limitations? | |||
| # How suitable are NFS and AFS in modern small networks?  Enterprise networks?  Internet-scale applications?  Why? | |||
| == In Class Notes == | |||
| === Goals of NFS and AFS === | |||
| ==== NFS ==== | |||
| * Remote access like local access | |||
| * Scale to ~50 clients | |||
| * Portability | |||
| * Lightweight | |||
| ==== AFS ==== | |||
| * Remote access like local access | |||
| * Scale to 5000 - 10000 hosts | |||
| * Portability (POSIX) | |||
| === Differences === | |||
| ==== NFS ==== | |||
| # NFS does a system call for every read/write | |||
| # NFS can operate with diskless clients | |||
| # Lightweight clients | |||
| # Files are up-to-date, can be inconsistent | |||
| # Trusted clients | |||
| # Stateless | |||
| ==== AFS ==== | |||
| # AFS does a system call only on retrieving and storing a file | |||
| # AFS assumes clients have a hard disk | |||
| # Heavier-weight client | |||
| # Files may be stale, but data is consistent | |||
| # Untrusted clients | |||
| # Stateful | |||
| === Contributions === | |||
| ==== NFS ==== | |||
| * Kmalloc | |||
| * VFS | |||
| * (XDR, SunRPC) | |||
| === Aside: Kerberos for Dummies === | |||
| <pre> | |||
| 1. Client Identification:    <client> ==> <kerberos>  | |||
| 2. Client Request Ticket:    <client> <== <kerberos> | |||
| 3. Authenticate with Ticket: <client> ==> <server> | |||
| </pre> | |||
Latest revision as of 20:34, 13 February 2008
Readings
- Jelica Protic et al., "Distributed Shared Memory: Concepts and Systems" (1996)
 This paper reviews work in the area of distributed shared memory.
- Russel Sandberg et al., "Design and Implementation of the Sun Network Filesystem" (1985)
 This is the original NFS paper.
- John H. Howard et al., "Scale and Performance in a Distributed File System" (1988)
 This paper describes AFS and compares it to NFS.
Questions
For the Protic paper, consider the following:
- What were the major problems addressed in DSM research following Kai Li's dissertation?
- Did these advances change the scope of environments and problems appropriate for DSM?
- Why aren't DSM systems commonly in use today?
For the NFS and AFS papers, consider these questions:
- What were the key design goals of NFS and AFS?
- How well did they achieve their goals?
- What are their limitations?
- How suitable are NFS and AFS in modern small networks? Enterprise networks? Internet-scale applications? Why?
In Class Notes
Goals of NFS and AFS
NFS
- Remote access like local access
- Scale to ~50 clients
- Portability
- Lightweight
AFS
- Remote access like local access
- Scale to 5000 - 10000 hosts
- Portability (POSIX)
Differences
NFS
- NFS does a system call for every read/write
- NFS can operate with diskless clients
- Lightweight clients
- Files are up-to-date, can be inconsistent
- Trusted clients
- Stateless
AFS
- AFS does a system call only on retrieving and storing a file
- AFS assumes clients have a hard disk
- Heavier-weight client
- Files may be stale, but data is consistent
- Untrusted clients
- Stateful
Contributions
NFS
- Kmalloc
- VFS
- (XDR, SunRPC)
Aside: Kerberos for Dummies
1. Client Identification: <client> ==> <kerberos> 2. Client Request Ticket: <client> <== <kerberos> 3. Authenticate with Ticket: <client> ==> <server>