Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition with ext2. To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that file system. At all. As a cache file system ext2 is fine, because it is fast, most kernels have the drivers and if it breaks because of a system crash, so what, it was just a cache. Harald. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 schrieb ext Harald Barth: We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition with ext2. To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that file system. At all. OK. replase reiser with xfs, jfs, whatever. I guess the real question was: What's the reason why one should not use other filesystems than ext2 for the cache partition on a Linux client? Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
On Nov 29, 2007, at 07:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 schrieb ext Harald Barth: We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition with ext2. To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that file system. At all. OK. replase reiser with xfs, jfs, whatever. I guess the real question was: What's the reason why one should not use other filesystems than ext2 for the cache partition on a Linux client? For a cache partition, at least on other *ixes, the cache partition has always needed special attention because of the way its used by the AFS kernel module. Certain care has to be taken as to do operations in such a way that kernel deadlocks and such are avoided. For example, on Solaris you use ufs, however, you can't use logging ufs because of known deadlock problems. I'd assume that the use of ext2 on Linux is for a similar reason. -rob ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
For a cache partition, at least on other *ixes, the cache partition has always needed special attention because of the way its used by the AFS kernel module. Certain care has to be taken as to do operations in such a way that kernel deadlocks and such are avoided. For example, on Solaris you use ufs, however, you can't use logging ufs because of known deadlock problems. I'd assume that the use of ext2 on Linux is for a similar reason. -rob Fascinating. I did not know of UFS logging issue on the cache partition. Strangely, I haven't heard of any issues. does ext3 have this issue as well? I had used logging ufs as a cache partition for years without a problem as well -- but in the past couple years ran into deadlocks. I remember reliably seeing them under Solaris 10x86 on a Dell 2650 where it'd lock up right after AFS started and some automated processes were busy trying to access it. -rob ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Harald Barth wr ites: We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition with ext2. To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that file system. At all. As a cache file system ext2 is fine, because it as i recall resiferfs doesnt work because it doesnt keep a fixed mapping between file objects and what afs would consider the inode. i believe people have been lucky with using a reisferfs cache filesystem but it had to be on a seperate partition. normally, its journaling that creates trouble for caching filesystems. personally, unless you have a need for massive amounts of cache, use memcache. search through the list archives for a better answers about this. this info doesnt appear to be in the wiki, so perhaps it needs one. (and one that is more correct than my vague ramblings). ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
Rob Banz wrote: On Nov 29, 2007, at 07:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 schrieb ext Harald Barth: We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition with ext2. To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that file system. At all. OK. replase reiser with xfs, jfs, whatever. I guess the real question was: What's the reason why one should not use other filesystems than ext2 for the cache partition on a Linux client? For a cache partition, at least on other *ixes, the cache partition has always needed special attention because of the way its used by the AFS kernel module. Certain care has to be taken as to do operations in such a way that kernel deadlocks and such are avoided. For example, on Solaris you use ufs, however, you can't use logging ufs because of known deadlock problems. I'd assume that the use of ext2 on Linux is for a similar reason. -rob Fascinating. I did not know of UFS logging issue on the cache partition. Strangely, I haven't heard of any issues. does ext3 have this issue as well? Thanks, Jason ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
On Nov 29, 2007 8:57 AM, Rob Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For a cache partition, at least on other *ixes, the cache partition has always needed special attention because of the way its used by the AFS kernel module. Certain care has to be taken as to do operations in such a way that kernel deadlocks and such are avoided. For example, on Solaris you use ufs, however, you can't use logging ufs because of known deadlock problems. I'd assume that the use of ext2 on Linux is for a similar reason. -rob Fascinating. I did not know of UFS logging issue on the cache partition. Strangely, I haven't heard of any issues. does ext3 have this issue as well? I had used logging ufs as a cache partition for years without a problem as well -- but in the past couple years ran into deadlocks. I remember reliably seeing them under Solaris 10x86 on a Dell 2650 where it'd lock up right after AFS started and some automated processes were busy trying to access it. For documentation purposes it might be interesting to get kernel backtraces of those if you ever get bored.
Re: [OpenAFS] What's the problem with reiser
Jason Edgecombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fascinating. I did not know of UFS logging issue on the cache partition. Strangely, I haven't heard of any issues. does ext3 have this issue as well? No, ext3 is fine. UFS logging is also fine provided that nothing else is writing to the same partition. afsd prints out a warning about this when using UFS with logging on Solaris. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
