Hello,
we're seing an LBUG on clients running with Lustre 1.6.5.1 (the servers are
still under 1.6.4.3). I tried finding this in bugzilla with no success. There
seems to be some data inconsistency, can somebody please tell me whether this
is rather on the server side (the data on disk is inconsist
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 16:00 +0200, Erich Focht wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we're seing an LBUG on clients running with Lustre 1.6.5.1 (the servers are
> still under 1.6.4.3). I tried finding this in bugzilla with no success.
Bug 16427.
b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Mittwoch 20 August 2008, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 16:00 +0200, Erich Focht wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > we're seing an LBUG on clients running with Lustre 1.6.5.1 (the servers are
> > still under 1.6.4.3). I tried finding this in bugzilla with no success.
>
> Bug 16427.
Th
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 16:47 +0200, Erich Focht wrote:
>
> Thanks but... I don't seem to be authorized to see that bug (?).
Oh, yes. :-( I tend to forget to look at the privacy settings on bugs.
> Is that bug fixed in 1.6.5.1?
No. Reported on 1.6.5 in fact.
> Any advice resulting from its co
Thanks, Brian.
A more general comment: what is the use of invisible bugs, anyway? I
suppose the bug has been set "private" by the reporter. Wouldn't it
actually make sense to have all bugs open, such that others are warned
of the issue? Guess if somebody doesn't want to disclose the company
on beh
I agree that hiding bugs is quite bad.
I'm going to be an open source curmudgeon for a minute and say that if
Sun/CFS wants to track customer-specific, sensitive data bugs, they need
to have a separate system and pay someone to make sure that all internal
bugs are santized and put into the open s
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 16:40 +0200, Erich Focht wrote:
>
> A more general comment: what is the use of invisible bugs, anyway?
You have to remember that we have customers who have sensitive data.
Sometimes they need to share this data with us and yet not have it
publicly consumable.
> I
> suppose
All LLNL bug reports to Sun are public. We are willing to do the extra
work to sanitize bug reports ourselves. It's usually little or no
effort anyway - we rarely need to post an entire crash dump or a stack
trace that includes application data.
I would encourage sites that may have chosen to
On Donnerstag 21 August 2008, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 16:40 +0200, Erich Focht wrote:
> >
> > A more general comment: what is the use of invisible bugs, anyway?
>
> You have to remember that we have customers who have sensitive data.
> Sometimes they need to share this dat
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 19:58 +0200, Erich Focht wrote:
>
> Just looking for a way to stay informed on what's going on with this bug.
Indeed. I can understand that.
> If I file it (as non-private) maybe it will be closed as duplicate, but
> actually it would be usefull to keep it around and at le
> > If I file it (as non-private) maybe it will be closed as duplicate, but
> > actually it would be usefull to keep it around and at least synchronize the
> > status with that of the private bug.
>
> Yes. If you were to file it and make it public and note that you were
> told it was an instance
On Aug 21, 2008 09:59 -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>
> I'm going to be an open source curmudgeon for a minute and say that if
> Sun/CFS wants to track customer-specific, sensitive data bugs, they need
> to have a separate system and pay someone to make sure that all internal
> bugs are santized
> Since being part of Sun the Lustre designs and design discussions
> are available to the public (e.g. lustre-devel, wiki, public bugs for
> feature development, and internal debugging discussions, etc). In truth,
> it hasn't made a huge difference in external contributions to code or
> design, b
13 matches
Mail list logo
