Just an FYI,
building against Ceph 10.2.7 in Fedora rawhide (f27) the build fails.
Details at
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5601/19135601/build.log
versus ganesha-2.4.5 which does build.
I'm guessing that this might be a Ceph 10 versus 11 or 12 thing? branto tried
to build C
The following patches have been cherry-picked to the V2.4-stable branch.
Last call for any others before I tag 2.4.4
Thanks,
>> Fix-Coverity-CID-155159-Deadlock
>> commit a6636acb1448b3fa3330e5b7bd20afe7719e7a0f
>> Change-Id: I92023e942e8f9ade894d57dac9c0d48dc351b5a8
>>
>> Reduce-and-mitigate-a
On 02/03/2017 03:56 AM, Swen Schillig wrote:
> On Do, 2017-02-02 at 10:00 -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
>> It was in the tree, and was removed because Debian doesn't like
>> having
>> it in tree: https://review.gerrithub.io/282996
>>
>> Daniel
> Hmm, I didn't see it being offered directly from D
- Original Message -
> From: "Wyllys Ingersoll"
> To: "Kaleb Keithley"
> Cc: nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:27:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] nfs-ganesha-config.sh missing from Ubuntu
> 16
- Original Message -
> From: "Daniel Gryniewicz"
>
> @kalebskeithley builds them on his PPA.
>
The packaging bits are here
https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha-debian
Sorry, I don't see where this came from (a github issue? I can't find it) to
cc: Wyllys.
--
Kaleb
-
Hi,
FYI, NFS-Ganesha 2.4.2 has been tagged. Nominally at the request of the
upstream Ceph community for their upstream builds.
20 changes have been committed since 2.4.1:
Implement support_ex for FSAL_NULL
8334ffbb16c87efebf169ac7c6be405b92a379d3
Stack MDCACHE on top of any FSAL st
Hi,
I see the new logic to in FindRGW.cmake that wants version 1.1 (RGW_MAJOR = 1,
RGW_MINOR = 1),
but in Fedora 24+, Ceph (*-10.2.2-x) there's only, e.g.,
librados.h:#define LIBRADOS_VER_MAJOR 0
librados.h:#define LIBRADOS_VER_MINOR 69
librados.h:#define LIBRADOS_VER_EXTRA 1
and nothing rese
How about NFS-GRACE time?
On 08/10/2016 03:53 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
> Having vanquished (for the most part) dynamic export update, and the ease of
> doing so, I have started to think about what other config parameters would
> be useful to be able to dynamically update.
>
> Please read over this a
Forwarded Message
Subject: ABRT report for package nfs-ganesha has reached 10 occurrences
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:12:23 + (UTC)
From: notificati...@fedoraproject.org
To: kkeit...@redhat.com
Packages: nfs-ganesha
Function: raise
First occurrence: 2016-06-04
Type: core
Forwarded Message
Subject: ABRT report for package nfs-ganesha has reached 10 occurrences
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:10:58 + (UTC)
From: notificati...@fedoraproject.org
To: kkeit...@redhat.com
Packages: nfs-ganesha
Function: unknown function
First occurrence: 2016-06-04
Typ
- Forwarded Message -
From: notificati...@fedoraproject.org
To: kkeit...@redhat.com
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 4:45:36 AM
Subject: ABRT report for package nfs-ganesha has reached 100 occurrences
Packages: nfs-ganesha
Function: raise
First occurrence: 2016-05-30
Type: core
Count:
On 03/18/2016 09:47 PM, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> Kaleb KEITHLEY [kkeit...@redhat.com] wrote:
>> On 03/17/2016 10:57 AM, Malahal Naineni wrote:
>>
>>> 1. If you want, I can replace 2.3.0-1 with 2.3.1 version and can move your
>>> tag to point to that 2.3.1 (just o
I made the V2.3.1 tag (yesterday, 16 Mar). Please don't move it.
Thanks,
--
Kaleb
- Original Message -
> From: "Malahal Naineni"
> To: Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:54:29 PM
> Subject: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] V2.3-stable (V2.3.1) update
>
On 03/17/2016 09:19 AM, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> Kaleb, the tag you made V2.3.1 actually points to 2.3.0-1 version in its
> src/CMakeLists.txt file. You should have at least changed
> src/CMakeLists.txt file reflect V2.3.1 version before tagging.
Ugh. I forgot about that. :-(
>
> I back ported so
On 03/17/2016 10:57 AM, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> 1. If you want, I can replace 2.3.0-1 with 2.3.1 version and can move your
> tag to point to that 2.3.1 (just one commit changing the CMAKE file).
> Then I will rebase my patches that I did today on top of that and name
> it 2.3.2.
>
> 2. My back po
Hi,
What are the plans for finalizing 2.3.1?
- Forwarded Message -
> From: "Manus"
> Hi,
> Could you build the package with last V2.3.0-1:
> https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/commits/V2.3-stable
> Because I think I am facing https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-
> ganesha/commit
Hi,
Would someone please push the 2.4-dev-X tags that in the github repo to the
gerrithub repo.
(and maybe all the missing 2.3 and 2.2 tags too?)
I'm trying to submit patches to gerrithub.io based on the V2.4-dev-7 tarball
from github and am failing the CEA validation. Maybe things have alrea
- Original Message -
> From: "Bishoy Mikhael"
>
> My problem is not in the setup, my problem is with the failover scenarios,
> I'm trying to see how efficient pacemaker is in handling Ganesha failover.
> What I see is that pacemaker did nothing regarding Ganesha.
> I killed the Ganesha
Read my blog at
http://blog.gluster.org/2015/10/linux-scale-out-nfsv4-using-nfs-ganesha-and-glusterfs-one-step-at-a-time/
- Original Message -
> From: "Gmail"
> To: "Niels de Vos"
> Cc: Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 8:43:41 AM
> Subject: Re:
- Original Message -
> From: "Malahal Naineni"
>
> When I brought this up last time, Frank suggested to make V2.2.1 after
> few iterations of V2.2.0-N types. So I followed it here. There are
> merits in Franks approach as well, so let us talk tomorrow.
>
> We can definitely re-tag, if
Awesome.
Just curious, is it possible to (re)tag this as V2.3.1 instead?
Thanks
--
Kaleb
- Original Message -
> From: "Malahal Naineni"
>
> Branch: V2.3-stable
>
> Changes:
>
> $ git log --format="%h: %an, %s" V2.3.0..V2.3.0-1
> 51f8bda: Malahal Naineni, V2.3.0-1
> 4c40075: Matt
On 11/17/2015 12:42 AM, Zheng Liu wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> ...
> Are you running rpcbind service?
>
>
> No. On centos 5, portmap runs by default. Does nfs-ganesha depends on
> rpcbind? Can I run nfs-ganesha with portmap?
>
portmap is the right package on RHEL5.
On 10/19/2015 09:35 AM, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Swen Schillig wrote:
>> I'm not talking about recovery,
>> just about how and where to end a program.
>> ...and I still believe a log-function is not the right place to that.
>
> I've always viewed a fatal log fun
Hi,
This is mainly targeted at Dan, since he's been cleaning up the build.
For 2.3rc3 fedora packaging I spent a bit of time figuring out why the
ganeshactl bits get installed twice, once with an overt `python setup.py
install ...` and then again by the `make install` when it recurses into
the g
FYI, wrt 32-bit compile errors, ignore the patch to CMakeList.txt in
this patch.
On 09/10/2015 02:16 PM, Kaleb KEITHLEY wrote:
>
> Attached patch fixes compile errors building on Fedora rawhide
>
> -
Attached patch fixes compile errors building on Fedora rawhide
--
Kaleb
--- nfs-ganesha-2.3-rc1/src/cache_inode/cache_inode_avl.c.orig 2015-09-10 09:39:55.666344661 -0400
+++ nfs-ganesha-2.3-rc1/src/cache_inode/cache_inode_avl.c 2015-09-10 09:45:02.850344661 -0400
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
/* tmp ho
On 09/08/2015 05:59 AM, Soumya Koduri wrote:
> Joe,
>
> On Ubuntu, seems like you need to install "libacl1-dev" package to get
> the ACL libraries which is needed by FSAL_GLUSTER.
> Also note after installing the package, you need to re-compile both
> Gluster and nfs-ganesha sources to rightly l
On 08/27/2015 07:47 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
> Branch next
>
> Tag:V2.3-rc1
>
> NOTE: This tag includes a libntirpc update, please make sure your
> submodule is updated before pushing additional submissions.
>
> Highlights
>
> ...
>
> * libntirpc update
>
We, i.e. me, for Fedora packaging, need
- Original Message -
> From: "Malahal Naineni"
>...
>
> PS: there were some efforts to make ntirpc as an rpm by itself. Not sure where
> that is.
>
google[1] will tell you that libntirpc is in fact a stand-alone package in
Fedora and EPEL, and as you can see at [2] it's even availabl
29 matches
Mail list logo
