Re: Segment Store GC failing on Windows

2017-09-13 Thread Michael Dürig
Hi, This is a know issue for some Windows environments. A workaround is to set tarmk.mode=32 in the configuration of the SegmentNodeStoreService. See also the "Tar storage" section at https://helpx.adobe.com/experience-manager/kb/performance-tuning-tips.html. Michael https://helpx.adobe.co

Re: OAK-6575 - A word of caution

2017-09-13 Thread Ian Boston
Hi Angela, On 13 September 2017 at 06:50, Angela Schreiber wrote: > Hi Ian > > The new proposal looks a lot better to me. > > The only concern from a security perspective I could come up with is the > one we expressed already with the very first proposal (see initial word of > caution mail sent

Re: OAK-6575 - A word of caution

2017-09-13 Thread Angela Schreiber
Hi Ian The new proposal looks a lot better to me. The only concern from a security perspective I could come up with is the one we expressed already with the very first proposal (see initial word of caution mail sent by Francesco): applications built on top of Oak can up to now be sure that all ac

Segment Store GC failing on Windows

2017-09-13 Thread Yegor Kozlov
Hi Every time Segment Store GC runs I get a bunch of these exceptions: 04.09.2017 07:41:53.157 *WARN* [TarMK filer reaper [C:\Users\yegor\aem\segmentstore]] org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.segment.file.FileReaper Unable to remove file C:\Users\yegor\aem\segmentstore\data00163a.tar java.nio.file.FileSys

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Vikas Saurabh
Ack. Would continue with the backport then :). On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: > Its was +0 ;) > Chetan Mehrotra > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Vikas Saurabh > wrote: >> Hi Chetan, >> >> Was your concern a -1 or a +/- 0? >> >> Thanks, >> Vikas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Chetan Mehrotra
Its was +0 ;) Chetan Mehrotra On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Vikas Saurabh wrote: > Hi Chetan, > > Was your concern a -1 or a +/- 0? > > Thanks, > Vikas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Vikas Saurabh
Hi Chetan, Was your concern a -1 or a +/- 0? Thanks, Vikas

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Davide Giannella
On 13/09/2017 09:22, Vikas Saurabh wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chetan Mehrotra > wrote: > >> Would the backport be of use now? As any upgrade I think would happen >> first to initial release from that branch where this fix would not be >> present > Well, from arguments pov, I

Re: OAK-6650 release changes testing

2017-09-13 Thread Davide Giannella
On 12/09/2017 15:55, Robert Munteanu wrote: > -deploy > +package Gosh! I didn't see the `phase` binding... Didn't try it out yet but it should definitely work :) D.

Re: Intent to backport OAK-6656 to 1.6 and 1.4 branch

2017-09-13 Thread Vikas Saurabh
Hi, On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote: > Would the backport be of use now? As any upgrade I think would happen > first to initial release from that branch where this fix would not be > present Well, from arguments pov, I think one can always package upgraded setup with late