Hi,
I didn't have the time to follow all the discussions recently. Anybody
managed to run the openafs client on x86 Linux 2.6.10?
Cheers,
Hendrik
--
Wisdoms from Illinois Rules of the Road (fifth item of 'left turns'):
'Point the wheels straight ahead until you actually start to turn.'
Sergio Gelato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Sensei [2004-12-23 16:54:08 +0100]:
Has anyone got AFS working on suse 9.2 using their afs client? I had to
fix a script (it searched for kernel module libafs, actually the one
shipped with suse is called kafs) but anyway, afsd isn't starting:
Is
Derek Atkins wrote:
Sergio Gelato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Sensei [2004-12-23 16:54:08 +0100]:
Has anyone got AFS working on suse 9.2 using their afs client? I had to
fix a script (it searched for kernel module libafs, actually the one
shipped with suse is called kafs) but anyway, afsd isn't
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Hendrik Hoeth wrote:
I didn't have the time to follow all the discussions recently. Anybody
managed to run the openafs client on x86 Linux 2.6.10?
I just tried to build it on the most recent Fedora Core errata kernel, and
it fails. That's
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:10:56AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
Where you post about this exact problem with the 2.6.10rc1 kernel. Looks
like there was no resolution there, though; just a tangent about autoconf.
Ahh, and further list reading leads me to
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:10:56AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
Where you post about this exact problem with the 2.6.10rc1 kernel. Looks
like there was no resolution there, though; just a tangent about autoconf.
Ahh, and further list reading leads me to
Sergio Gelato wrote:
* Sensei [2004-12-23 16:54:08 +0100]:
Has anyone got AFS working on suse 9.2 using their afs client? I had to
fix a script (it searched for kernel module libafs, actually the one
shipped with suse is called kafs) but anyway, afsd isn't starting:
Is kafs the OpenAFS
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:42:32AM -0500, Derrick J Brashear wrote:
That's because it's not complete. Anyway, you can ifdef out the code for
now if you don't use gcpags (and if you have to ask what?, you don't)
Thanks, that's what I'll do for now. I appreciate the help.
--
Matthew Miller
--On Wednesday, December 22, 2004 05:18:19 PM -0500 Rudolph T.
Maceyko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But now copying only takes 2 minutes and *so far* I've received the
file intact. I'll run through a couple more times and write back
since I also saw *occasional* successes even when using the disk
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Rudolph T. Maceyko wrote:
--On Wednesday, December 22, 2004 05:18:19 PM -0500 Rudolph T.
Maceyko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But now copying only takes 2 minutes and *so far* I've received the
file intact. I'll run through a couple more times and write back
since I also saw
In ./src/cf/linux-test3.m4, at the end:
AC_DEFUN([LINUX_KERNEL_PAGE_FOLLOW_LINK],[
AC_MSG_CHECKING(for page_follow_link_light vs page_follow_link)
save_CPPFLAGS=$CPPFLAGS
CPPFLAGS=-I${LINUX_KERNEL_PATH}/include -D__KERNEL__ $CPPFLAGS
AC_CACHE_VAL(ac_cv_linux_kernel_page_follow_link,
[
--On Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:53:58 PM -0500 Derrick J Brashear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far, the results using memcache are: good (but I haven't done any
further timing tests). The results using disk cache are: bad (some
silent truncation/corruption using Derrick's suggested patch to
Shouldn't that last page_follow_page be page_follow_link instead?
Oh, wait, it's worse than that, because just having a function which doesn't
exist doesn't cause an error by default, meaning the test always succeeds. A
simple fix (plus the typo fix) follows. And with this, and with the
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Rudolph T. Maceyko wrote:
- keep rx patch, but with larger memcache
- no rx patch, probably with larger memcache
Would trying those help?
don't care, probably. the rx patch should be fine. i assume there's
another truncation problem with the disk cache code.
14 matches
Mail list logo
