Community
To be honest when I first learnt of the AVFS, my immediate reaction was... why? Personally I've yet to deploy an AVFS as I've only worked with companies who use full SQL replication, so I'm not sure what this brings to the table.
What I mean by that is Vault has always had a means to connect a workgroup to Vault without the need to deploy full publisher & subscriber based replication. You installed an ADMS at a remote site, and pointed it to the master ADMS which hosts the SQL instance. That remote site had a filestore, it had an ADMS, but all SQL traffic was redirected to the primary site hosting the Vault. On face value, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly what AVFS does but appears to be purely rebranded? Possibly simpler to implement but essentially does the same thing?
I'd also love to know what benefits AVFS brings over the legacy methods for doing this.
Specifically to your question though, are you currently using full SQL replication? Now you're wondering what the benefits are to having a site without a subscriber SQL instance?
A typical network topology for the ADMS multisite (aka filestore) replication scenario goes like:
Client <---> ADMS <----------------------> SQL
In the ADMS multisite case, the longer wire (i.e. higher round-trip time) is usually between ADMS and SQL. Since 1 meta-data call to ADMS often results in many SQL calls, performance suffers.
In the AVFS scenario, it looks like:
Client <----------------------> ADMS <---> SQL
\<---> AVFS
Now the longer wire is between the Client and ADMS (the AVFS is still close to the client). The meta-data calls to ADMS have a longer round trip, but the many round-trips to SQL (which is now close to the ADMS for everybody) are much faster; resulting in better performance.
The AVFS is much simpler than an ADMS, and doesn't suffer the workgroup ownership consequences of SQL replication.
Does this help?
-Dave
Dave Mink
Fusion Lifecycle
Autodesk, Inc.
I'm not sure that I understand the question ... if you want to compare how the different configurations will work for the way you use vault on your network, then you would need to try each one and measure the difference. Every customer is different, some may use particular workflows a lot, while others use some other workflow a lot.
-Dave
Dave Mink
Fusion Lifecycle
Autodesk, Inc.
**edit for link at bottom**
One way to test the rate of improvement is to perform a base-line test of a command or function.
So as an example:
I have SQL A and ADMS A in a single facility.
At a remote facility, I install ADMS B, and AVFS A. ADMS B is configured as a traditional 'multisite' topology, and AVFS A is pointed to ADMS A.
Then I take a client (at the remote facility) and login to ADMS B and peform an operation - lets say get and checkout of a dataset of ~10 files. Note the time duration, etc.
Then take the same client (with a clear workspace and files not checked out) and perform the same operation above when logged into AVFS A. Note the time duration.
Some environments will be more obvious than others, but in almost all cases, you will see performance improvements in using the AVFS server at the remote locations vs an ADMS server for the reasons Dave noted above.
This should assist in setting up AVFS. - same content as the help link Dave posted above.
Andy Spivey
SQA Engineer
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")