Re: About `dafileserver` vs `fileserver` differences (for small cells)

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:20:43AM +0200, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:06 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > To be clear, they do share a great bit of code (dafs was not "from
> > scratch"), but there are many places that do get differential treatment in
> > the source -- look for AFS_DEMAND_ATTACH_FS preprocessor conditionals.
> 
> 
> Based on what I see:
> 
>   https://github.com/openafs/openafs/search?q=AFS_DEMAND_ATTACH_FS
>   https://github.com/openafs/openafs/blob/c1d39153da00d5525b2f7874b2d214a7f1b1bb86/src/viced/Makefile.in#L15
>   https://github.com/openafs/openafs/blob/c1d39153da00d5525b2f7874b2d214a7f1b1bb86/src/dviced/Makefile.in#L15
> 
> I would assume that most of the code is common (in terms of files),
> and at compile time the sources are re-built with different defines.

That's correct.

But it's easy for code to *compile* but still behave badly at runtime.

> Thus I think that when one would modify the code, in large part the
> code is common, and where it isn't at least the "switch" is visible in
> there.  Therefore I'm confident that the `fileserver` is still a
> viable solution.  :)

I won't really dispute that it is viable at present, but it's pretty clear
to me that it's no longer a *recommended* solution, and I don't really
understand your attachment to it.  Is this just because you continue to
investigate running a simple fileserver without the bosserver and
demand-attach has more moving parts in that respect?

Thanks,

Ben