Hi Rob, hehe :) Alright, I will change it then.. Just had a quick chat with Sam and RobL about this.. Are you ok with having a flag to the isys_fs_add and fs_add API that determines whether or not we should do these checks and have ping set the flag to 1 and client-core set to 0? thanks, Murali
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Rob Ross wrote: > 80K clients... > > Murali Vilayannur wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > >> Quick uneducated question: this isn't automatically done on *every* > >> mount, right? > > > > yeah, it is done automatically on every *new* mount upcall. Is this a > > problem? (I changed the code to this behavior y'day night) > > thanks, > > Murali > > > >> Rob > >> > >> Phil Carns wrote: > >>> Murali Vilayannur wrote: > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> Just a heads-up.. > >>>> I have checked in a patch that will allow the pvfs2-ping utility to > >>>> verify > >>>> if the fs.conf files obtained from all the servers for a given fsid > >>>> is the same by checking against their crypto check sum (SHA1 right now) > >>>> Please let me know if you have any serious objections to doing it the way > >>>> I have done right now.. > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Murali > >>> Hi Murali, > >>> > >>> This is integrated into fs_add so that the test is performed > >>> automatically at mount time now, correct? We had done something similar > >>> in the pvfs2-validate utility, but I think it will be good to have it > >>> integrated into the normal mount process. > >>> > >>> I haven't looked at the code, but I have a few functionality comments > >>> after playing with it this morning: > >>> > >>> - Is it possible to filter whitespace and comments out of the config > >>> file before gathering whatever information you need for comparison, or > >>> do you want to enforce that the fs.conf files be verbatim identical? > >>> > >>> - I ran one test where a server had an extra line in its configuration > >>> file, and that showed up fine as a mount error with information in the > >>> log files showing the size difference. However, I ran another test > >>> where I just changed the value of UnexpectedRequests from "50" to "51", > >>> and this did not generate any error. Is there anything in particular > >>> you have to do to enable the checksum tests in addition to the size tests? > >>> > >>> -Phil > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Pvfs2-developers mailing list > >>> Pvfs2-developers@beowulf-underground.org > >>> http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Pvfs2-developers mailing list Pvfs2-developers@beowulf-underground.org http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
