On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:40:36 -0800 Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
> I need to be able to install AFS and have it work. If I can't do > that, I will install something other than AFS. It really is that > simple. Sure; same argument from my side. > I have not spent anywhere near as much time inside the code as you > have, and I *do* agree that my theory that idledead is a significant > contributing factor is simply a theory, and I could be wrong. Oh, to be clear, I'm not trying to say you're wrong about _that_. It could very much be contributing to this, although I don't think it's possible to be the only cause; idledead should only change anything if you have a delay of e.g. 50 seconds; it's not going to cause that 50 second delay in the first place. If you want my opinion on what the _reason_ is, it's just that your high rate of pag generation and high rate of writes is more than the fileserver can handle, which is why I only ever see this stuff come from you (at least, to this degree). or, something in that area. I've mentioned a few times a few different changes that I think can alleviate some of this, but... I never heard anything back about them, so it didn't seem like you were interested or that it wasn't that important. > OpenAFS, as presently constructed, through only some fault of the > OpenAFS development community (most of the problem was pre-existing, > and much of it dated from the pthreads integration inside > Transarc/IBM), fails most of the markers that I would look for in > evaluating code for robustness. I believe it's getting better, but > it's a *long* way from good. I realize that you're hearing from other > people who are advocating for flexibility and configurability. Think > of me as a passionate advocate for robustness, because that's *my* > squeaky wheel right now. Yes, I can understand that, and I can understand why that is what you're advocating. But when I see you talk on this list, I see you as a gatekeeper, and so when I see objection to runtime options, I see that as something that will become "openafs.org policy" or something if I don't object. If you want to try to say that we shouldn't add anything more until these problems are solved, then... well, I don't think you're trying to advocate that everyone should stop what they're doing just to help you :) but that at least puts a kind of limit on things. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
