Re: [OpenAFS] no quorum elected

2005-03-02 Thread Horst Birthelmer
On Mar 2, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Steve Lenti wrote: Trying an initial install on Suse 9.2. Everything works fine up until I have to add the initial users. Kaserver, vlserver, ptserver, buserver, and bosserver -noauth all up and running. Anyone know the problem I am having below? ka> create afs init

Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS 1.3.79 Debian .debs

2005-03-02 Thread Lars Schimmer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Fedyk schrieb: | Lars Schimmer wrote: | |> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Hi! |> |> Mr. Hartmann was really nice and made these pakets ready, I just |> packaged them |> and lay them on my ftp: |> |> ftp://europa.cg.cs.tu-bs.

Re: [OpenAFS] Time on AFS-cell

2005-03-02 Thread Lars Schimmer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeffrey Hutzelman schrieb: | The built-in mechanism will be used automatically by any machine running | afsd, unless you start afsd (not the fileserver) with the switch | '-nosettime' (one dash, not two). You must do this on any machine | running an NT

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: twiki vandalized

2005-03-02 Thread Jimmy Engelbrecht
Joseph H Vilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dammit: I removed as much vandalization as I could last week; it looks > like it took two days for about 75 pages to be re-vandalized. Grrr Frustrating, sounds like we have no backups, is that true ? /Jimmy ___

RE: [OpenAFS] no quorum elected

2005-03-02 Thread Steve Lenti
> On Mar 2, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Steve Lenti wrote: > > > Trying an initial install on Suse 9.2. Everything works > fine up until > > I have to add the initial users. Kaserver, vlserver, ptserver, > > buserver, and bosserver -noauth all up and running. Anyone > know the > > problem I am havin

Re: [OpenAFS] which rpms for redhat elws 4.

2005-03-02 Thread Derek Atkins
I haven't built any 2.6-based RPMs (or indeed any 1.3-based rpms). There are some "unofficial RPMS" available. -derek David Bear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I noticed there are rpms for fedora, redhat enterprise linux 3, and > other version from 9 down to 7. However, I don't see any for > ent

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: twiki vandalized

2005-03-02 Thread Derrick J Brashear
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jimmy Engelbrecht wrote: Joseph H Vilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dammit: I removed as much vandalization as I could last week; it looks like it took two days for about 75 pages to be re-vandalized. Grrr Frustrating, sounds like we have no backups, is that true ? there is

Re: [OpenAFS] Time on AFS-cell

2005-03-02 Thread Derrick J Brashear
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lars Schimmer wrote: Just one quick question: where to set the -nosettime option in the windows client? There's no explicit GUI option for it (Or I was blind), nor is the afsd started explicit in the services... Looking at cm_CheckServers I'd suggest you don't need it because

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: twiki vandalized

2005-03-02 Thread Jeffrey Hutzelman
On Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:12:30 AM -0500 Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jimmy Engelbrecht wrote: Joseph H Vilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dammit: I removed as much vandalization as I could last week; it looks like it took two days for about 75 pages to

[OpenAFS] Re: Speed of AFS

2005-03-02 Thread Joe Buehler
Lars Schimmer wrote: We get here round about 2-3 MB/Sec from server to client, and for some folks that's a bit to slow (on 100 MBit). Try checking your network. You might have a duplex misconfiguration problem. Or you might be dropping packets. I've had my fair share of this sort of thing to de

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: Speed of AFS

2005-03-02 Thread Lars Schimmer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joe Buehler schrieb: | Lars Schimmer wrote: | |> We get here round about 2-3 MB/Sec from server to client, and for some |> folks |> that's a bit to slow (on 100 MBit). | | | Try checking your network. You might have a duplex misconfiguration | problem.

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: Speed of AFS

2005-03-02 Thread Mitch Collinsworth
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lars Schimmer wrote: Joe Buehler schrieb: | Lars Schimmer wrote: | |> We get here round about 2-3 MB/Sec from server to client, and for some |> folks |> that's a bit to slow (on 100 MBit). | | | Try checking your network. You might have a duplex misconfiguration | problem. Or