[OpenAFS] Retiring the LWP fileserver
We're currently maintaining 3 versions of the AFS fileserver - the LWP one, a normal pthreaded fileserver, and the demand attach fileserver. The normal pthreaded fileserver has been the default for all of our supported platforms since the 1.4 release. I'd like to simplify the build tree, and the fileserver code, by removing support for the LWP fileserver. We have a long term goal of removing LWP from the tree entirely, so this is one step along the way. If I do so, this change would only target master - the LWP fileserver would remain on the 1.6 tree. Is there anyone out there deliberately making use of the LWP fileserver who would be affected by its removal from master? Cheers, Simon ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Retiring the LWP fileserver
Cases I knew of LWP fileserver being used: Linux with new pthreads support until what turned out to be bugs in our pthread support were addressed. LD_ASSUME_KERNEL also could be used at the time to assume an older kernel and assume LinuxThreads. Previous NetBSD versions: their pthread support was buggy. As far as I know, the LWP fileserver (nor volserver) are neither necessary nor desirable anywhere. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote: We're currently maintaining 3 versions of the AFS fileserver - the LWP one, a normal pthreaded fileserver, and the demand attach fileserver. The normal pthreaded fileserver has been the default for all of our supported platforms since the 1.4 release. I'd like to simplify the build tree, and the fileserver code, by removing support for the LWP fileserver. We have a long term goal of removing LWP from the tree entirely, so this is one step along the way. If I do so, this change would only target master - the LWP fileserver would remain on the 1.6 tree. Is there anyone out there deliberately making use of the LWP fileserver who would be affected by its removal from master? Cheers, Simon ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info -- Derrick ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
[OpenAFS] Secure Endpoints website loads VERY slowly
I ask my students to doanload KfW from secure endpoints. But for some reason the HTML page: http://www.secure-endpoints.com/index.html#kfw is VERY slow to load. Just to VIEW the page can take 10-15 minutes, and that's before one even tries to download the various software bundles on the site. (The slow loading happens with Explorer, Chrome or Opera, so I don't think it's browser specific. It happens on Windows and on Solaris, so I don't think it's arch specific.) Is this a bug or a feature? Best regards, John ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Secure Endpoints website loads VERY slowly
John Tang Boyland wrote, On 2011-09-13 18:00: I ask my students to doanload KfW from secure endpoints. But for some reason the HTML page: http://www.secure-endpoints.com/index.html#kfw is VERY slow to load. Just to VIEW the page can take 10-15 minutes, and that's before one even tries to download the various software bundles on the site. (The slow loading happens with Explorer, Chrome or Opera, so I don't think it's browser specific. It happens on Windows and on Solaris, so I don't think it's arch specific.) Is this a bug or a feature? It works just fine here (loads within 1 second or so). -- Venlig hilsen Georg Sluyterman ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Retiring the LWP fileserver
On Sep 13, 2011, at 14:52 , Derrick Brashear wrote: Cases I knew of LWP fileserver being used: Linux with new pthreads support until what turned out to be bugs in our pthread support were addressed. LD_ASSUME_KERNEL also could be used at the time to assume an older kernel and assume LinuxThreads. Previous NetBSD versions: their pthread support was buggy. As far as I know, the LWP fileserver (nor volserver) are neither necessary nor desirable anywhere. The last time I tried, only the LWP fileserver worked under User Mode Linux :-) But then, that was in 2003. And I guess nobody cares. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote: We're currently maintaining 3 versions of the AFS fileserver - the LWP one, a normal pthreaded fileserver, and the demand attach fileserver. The normal pthreaded fileserver has been the default for all of our supported platforms since the 1.4 release. I'd like to simplify the build tree, and the fileserver code, by removing support for the LWP fileserver. We have a long term goal of removing LWP from the tree entirely, so this is one step along the way. If I do so, this change would only target master - the LWP fileserver would remain on the 1.6 tree. Is there anyone out there deliberately making use of the LWP fileserver who would be affected by its removal from master? -- Stephan Wiesand DESY -DV- Platanenenallee 6 15738 Zeuthen, Germany ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
[OpenAFS] OpenAFS on Windows 7
Hi all Win 7 users! Having played with Windows 7 and also with the OpenAFS installation and 32bit and 64bit versions we came to the conclusions that Windows 7 sucks in many aspects -including the troubles with afs and also kerberos. There are some problems with the network and sharing center that cause some problems in several aspects. Yet with respect to OpenAFS we can tell anyone who is interested to wait the few days until the IFS client is there. Having it tested it worked really well from the first install and we _hope_ that it is just bug free ;) until now no problems appeared. We think that Jeffrey Altman and the other developers did a really great job, many thanks for all the hard work! We cant wait until the IFS is in the official development tree so that the software can turn stable soon. thanks to the OpenAFS team from -mike the rest of the physnano it guys ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
[OpenAFS] Windows 2000 and the 1.6 release problem
Ok we have been running OpenAFS with version 1.5.7800 without problems. After the mail indicating problems with the 1.6 release, i gave it a try and also found that windows declared afsd_service as an invalid Win32 app. Possible cause is that the executable was build using visual studio 2010. The latter is using newer functions from the kernel only available in windows xp sp2+ so that the compiler marks the executable as operating system version 5.01 and subsystem version 5.01. The problem in that case would be that even if the versions are corrected (can be done) the executable is indeed missing a function. Now i was wondering if the latest release of openafs was done with Visualstudio 2010, if that is the case rebuild with VS2008 would most likely fix the binaries thus fixing the problem. If that is not the case i could do some investigation if it is of any help. best wishes -mike ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Secure Endpoints website loads VERY slowly
Completely off-topic for this list. On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, John Tang Boyland wrote: I ask my students to doanload KfW from secure endpoints. But for some reason the HTML page: http://www.secure-endpoints.com/index.html#kfw is VERY slow to load. Just to VIEW the page can take 10-15 minutes, and that's before one even tries to download the various software bundles on the site. (The slow loading happens with Explorer, Chrome or Opera, so I don't think it's browser specific. It happens on Windows and on Solaris, so I don't think it's arch specific.) Is this a bug or a feature? Best regards, John ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OpenAFS] Retiring the LWP fileserver
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de wrote: On Sep 13, 2011, at 14:52 , Derrick Brashear wrote: Cases I knew of LWP fileserver being used: Linux with new pthreads support until what turned out to be bugs in our pthread support were addressed. LD_ASSUME_KERNEL also could be used at the time to assume an older kernel and assume LinuxThreads. Previous NetBSD versions: their pthread support was buggy. As far as I know, the LWP fileserver (nor volserver) are neither necessary nor desirable anywhere. The last time I tried, only the LWP fileserver worked under User Mode Linux :-) But then, that was in 2003. And I guess nobody cares. at this point i'd guess other means of virtualization would better serve, anyway. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Retiring the LWP fileserver
Derrick Brashear sha...@gmail.com writes: Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de wrote: The last time I tried, only the LWP fileserver worked under User Mode Linux :-) But then, that was in 2003. And I guess nobody cares. at this point i'd guess other means of virtualization would better serve, anyway. There's an open bug tagged help about supporting AFS on User Mode Linux against the Debian package that no one has commented on or seemed to care about in years. I don't get the impression that many people use it any more, yeah. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
[OpenAFS] 1.4.14 with 2.6.18-274.3.1.el5?
Any ideas here? Known problem? What would you like to have for debugging info? OpenAFS 1.4.14 Linux 2.6.18-274.3.1.el5 Reboot with no AFS Remove entire cache directory contents Start AFS First test run, then immediate problem on 2nd test run of same code: -bash-3.2# time /afs/rcf/user/jblaine/afs-exercise.sh real0m11.423s user0m0.004s sys 0m0.023s -bash-3.2# time /afs/rcf/user/jblaine/afs-exercise.sh find: WARNING: Hard link count is wrong for .: this may be a bug in your filesystem driver. Automatically turning on find's -noleaf option. Earlier results may have failed to include directories that should have been searched. [... after 1m24s I ^C ] The script is, in essence: cd /afs/ourcell/someplace for every file found with 'find' cat file to /dev/null ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS for Windows IFS Status
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:14 PM, Ben Howell wrote: Will that release on/about Sep. 15 be a alpha/beta/dev release, or an actual public release? It's the 1.7 branch, and therefore a development release. And like all openafs development releases, it's public. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Retiring the LWP fileserver
On Sep 13, 2011, at 5:03 AM, Simon Wilkinson wrote: We're currently maintaining 3 versions of the AFS fileserver - the LWP one, a normal pthreaded fileserver, and the demand attach fileserver. The normal pthreaded fileserver has been the default for all of our supported platforms since the 1.4 release. I'd like to simplify the build tree, and the fileserver code, by removing support for the LWP fileserver. We have a long term goal of removing LWP from the tree entirely, so this is one step along the way. If I do so, this change would only target master - the LWP fileserver would remain on the 1.6 tree. Is there anyone out there deliberately making use of the LWP fileserver who would be affected by its removal from master? Not here (umich.edu). Steve___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
[OpenAFS] Re: 1.4.14 with 2.6.18-274.3.1.el5?
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:07:04 -0400 Jeff Blaine jbla...@kickflop.net wrote: -bash-3.2# time /afs/rcf/user/jblaine/afs-exercise.sh find: WARNING: Hard link count is wrong for .: this may be a bug in your filesystem driver. Automatically turning on find's -noleaf option. Earlier results may have failed to include directories that should have been searched. Is the problem just this message? This is known: -noleaf Do not optimize by assuming that directories contain 2 fewer subdirectories than their hard link count. This option is needed when searching filesystems that do not follow the Unix directory-link convention, such as CD-ROM or MS-DOS filesystems or AFS volume mount points. -- Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
