Hi,
This mail explains the initial design about how this will happen.
Administrators are going to create a directory on the volume with normal
fuse-mount(Or any other mounts) let's call it 'subdir1'.
Administrator will create auth-allow/reject options with the
ip/addresses he chooses to
Hi Aravinda,
Very good summary. I would like to rephrase a few parts.
On the shared token approach, the disadvantage is that the server will be more
complicated (not *really* complicated, just more than the shared token),
because it would need a login mechanism. Server would have to both
Few comments/suggestions from my side:
1. Under the section of "Guidelines that Maintainers are expected to
adhere to" point 3 describes the following:
"The responsibility of merging a patch into a release branch in normal
circumstances will be that of the release maintainer's. Only in
Raghavendra Talur wrote:
> Yes, because I updated from patch set 2 to 3 and tests for 2 were running
> on the same slave.
It seems my test for concurent runs misfires when previous run was
aborted. I need to improve that.
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
Hi Soumya,
Can you send a fix to this regression on upstream master too? This patch is
merged there.
regards,
Raghavendra
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khire...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Soumya,
>
> I analysed the issue and found out that crash has happened
On Mar 3, 2016 7:42 AM, "Emmanuel Dreyfus" wrote:
>
> Raghavendra Talur wrote:
>
> > The tests passed on the first run itself, except for the NetBSD with
> > "another test running on slave" error.
>
> Was the previous test on the slave canceled?
Yes, because
Raghavendra Talur wrote:
> The tests passed on the first run itself, except for the NetBSD with
> "another test running on slave" error.
Was the previous test on the slave canceled?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:30:24PM +0530, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
> > Any comments before I merge the patch
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13393/ ?
>
> The proposal has the merit of adressing the multi-OS case, but
On 03/02/2016 03:10 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
Hi,
All fops in NSR, follow a specific workflow as described in this
UML(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lxwox72n6ovfOwzmdlNCZBJ5vQcCaONvZva0aLWKUqk/edit?usp=sharing).
However all locking fops will follow a slightly different workflow as
IMPORTANT: Next weeks meeting will be held at 1500UTC instead of the
normal time. This is part of our trialing rotating schedules for
meeting. I've attached a calendar invite for next weeks meeting to
this mail.
The meeting minutes of this week are available at the following locations,
* Minutes:
Hi All,
This weeks weekly meeting will be held in #gluster-meeting on
freenode, in about 1 hour from now (1200UTC). This was supposed to be
the first meeting in which we tried out the proposed rotating schedule
(1200UTC/1500UTC). But this change wasn't communicated well, so we'll
start the
- Original Message -
> From: "Atin Mukherjee"
> To: "Avra Sengupta"
> Cc: "Gluster Devel"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 4:03:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Handling locks in NSR
>
>
>
>
>
> -Atin
-Atin
Sent from one plus one
On 02-Mar-2016 1:40 pm, "Avra Sengupta" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> All fops in NSR, follow a specific workflow as described in this UML(
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lxwox72n6ovfOwzmdlNCZBJ5vQcCaONvZva0aLWKUqk/edit?usp=sharing).
However all
-Atin
Sent from one plus one
On 02-Mar-2016 12:23 pm, "Aravinda" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For Gluster REST project we are planning to use JSON Web Token for
> authentication. There are two approaches to use JWT, please help us to
> evaluate between these two options.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 02:29:26PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 02:02 PM, Venky Shankar wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:40:08PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>All fops in NSR, follow a specific workflow as described in this
>
On 03/02/2016 02:02 PM, Venky Shankar wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:40:08PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
Hi,
All fops in NSR, follow a specific workflow as described in this
UML(https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lxwox72n6ovfOwzmdlNCZBJ5vQcCaONvZva0aLWKUqk/edit?usp=sharing).
However
16 matches
Mail list logo