🚀 go-pugleaf

Barry Shilliday (barry_s@nibelung.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> I'm tired of people flaming AFS, saying how it crashes their drives, how it's no
> faster than FFS.

With a fast drive, and a caching program, FFS can be as fast for
read/write access. Directory listings never get as fast, but it
depends on what the major use of your drive is

> The fact is it *is* a lot faster, it is practically impossible
> to invalidate and is infinitely better than FFS-DC.

DCFFS is a bag 'o' shite [tm], and why does eveyone get so annoyed abo
invalidation? 99% of the time the drive chugs for a while, and
eveything settles down.

> 'But it crashed my HD' people say.  Well if they RTFM and set the proper
> maxtrans rate etc, and used HDToolBox/RDPrep properly then maybe they wouldn't
> have these problems.  If you don't have a clue, stay away from AFS.  Otherwise
> use it, it's one of the most useful things available.

So I don't have a clue, CountB doesn't have a clue, and all the other
people who've had trouble with it?

For your information, I sat with a copy of the instructions for AFS,
and set them exactly as suggested, still no luck. I'm sure after his
first loss to AFS, CountB was very careful to set everything exactly,
result, another trashed drive.

Perhaps you would like to advise those of us who don't have a clue,
just how to set AFS up on _our_ machines so that it works, until then,
please everybody, accept that AFS does not work for everybody.

Paul

[disa yet again removed from the followups of an unsuitable post]
--
"I think such creatures are an attempt by the universe to make sure that
 we never take ourselves too seriously."
        -- Delenn (re: cats), "A Race Through Dark Places"