DistOS 2023W 2023-02-06: Difference between revisions

From Soma-notes
Created page with "==Discussion questions== * Discuss what you think was interesting about Sprite relative to past systems. What was new? What was old? * How does AFS compare to NFS, in terms of their design, implementation, and ambition? * What is the role of UNIX in the design and implementation of Sprite and AFS? * What else came to mind when reading and discussing these papers?"
 
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
* What is the role of UNIX in the design and implementation of Sprite and AFS?
* What is the role of UNIX in the design and implementation of Sprite and AFS?
* What else came to mind when reading and discussing these papers?
* What else came to mind when reading and discussing these papers?
==Notes==
<pre>
Sprite and AFS
--------------
- Sprite is similar to LOCUS in high-level design
- but Sprite has optimized for performance in various ways
  - when migrating processes, only copy pages that you need
    (if executable is already on other workstation in memory can just use those pages)
  - caching on both client and server
  - caching of files in memory (we have more RAM)
  - efficient distribution of filesystem namespace
- still not running on many workstations (100 workstations, 6 servers)
- note the tradeoff between RAM and disks
  - do as much with RAM as possible, just use disks for persistence
    (very much what we do today)
- Sprite seems very familiar because its caching architecture is very much how we do things today
AFS
- Andrew is for Andrew Carnegie, this came out of CMU (Carnegie Mellon Univ)
- AFS was trying for web scale before the web
  - global filesystem
  - every organization was a "cell" and AFS allowed for inter-cell communication
  - but authentication normally didn't work outside a cell so you
    mostly wouldn't see anything except public files
- took security seriously, integrated with Kerberos for authentication
- takes a very different approach to accessing files
  - workstation assumed to have a local disk
  - so on open, a file would be copied to the local disk
  - all work on the file would happen locally
  - on close, file would be copied back to the server
- quirk of the AFS model - close could fail!
  - do you check close for failure normally?
In AFS, the servers are very different from the clients
- complex Vice and Venus setup, for managing data blocks and metadata separately
- designed for large installations
AFS workstations couldn't work disconnected, but later systems tried to fix this (Coda, which didn't get that widely used)
</pre>

Revision as of 16:59, 6 February 2023

Discussion questions

  • Discuss what you think was interesting about Sprite relative to past systems. What was new? What was old?
  • How does AFS compare to NFS, in terms of their design, implementation, and ambition?
  • What is the role of UNIX in the design and implementation of Sprite and AFS?
  • What else came to mind when reading and discussing these papers?

Notes

Sprite and AFS
--------------

 - Sprite is similar to LOCUS in high-level design
 - but Sprite has optimized for performance in various ways
   - when migrating processes, only copy pages that you need
     (if executable is already on other workstation in memory can just use those pages)
   - caching on both client and server
   - caching of files in memory (we have more RAM)
   - efficient distribution of filesystem namespace
 - still not running on many workstations (100 workstations, 6 servers)
 - note the tradeoff between RAM and disks
   - do as much with RAM as possible, just use disks for persistence
     (very much what we do today)
 - Sprite seems very familiar because its caching architecture is very much how we do things today


AFS
 - Andrew is for Andrew Carnegie, this came out of CMU (Carnegie Mellon Univ)
 - AFS was trying for web scale before the web
   - global filesystem
   - every organization was a "cell" and AFS allowed for inter-cell communication
   - but authentication normally didn't work outside a cell so you
     mostly wouldn't see anything except public files
 - took security seriously, integrated with Kerberos for authentication
 - takes a very different approach to accessing files
   - workstation assumed to have a local disk
   - so on open, a file would be copied to the local disk
   - all work on the file would happen locally
   - on close, file would be copied back to the server
 - quirk of the AFS model - close could fail!
   - do you check close for failure normally?

In AFS, the servers are very different from the clients
 - complex Vice and Venus setup, for managing data blocks and metadata separately
 - designed for large installations

AFS workstations couldn't work disconnected, but later systems tried to fix this (Coda, which didn't get that widely used)