I modded openafs-kernel-version.sh to do the echo, and exit before final
case clause where it strips of the smp, and surely enough it seems to do
the right thing now.
-Matt
Derek Atkins wrote:
> Replying to my own post... What happens if you modify this file so
> that it
> returns the kernel v
Replying to my own post... What happens if you modify this file so that it
returns the kernel version before stripping off the kernel config
mnemonic? Does that cause it to build the correct kernel module for you?
-derek
Quoting Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yes, the idea is that 'rpmb
Yes, the idea is that 'rpmbuild -ba' without any arguments should create a
module for the currently-running kernel.. But I think there's a problem with
that. Can you run:
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/openafs-kernel-version.sh
This will tell me what it's printing out for the kernel. I suspect
thi
I'm also trying to build the 1.4.0rc5 SRPMS on an RHEL 4 amd64
machine(actually centos4.1, but basically the same). and am seeing that
only one openafs-kernel rpm is built, and that it contains only
/lib/modules/2.6.9-11.EL/kernel/fs/openafs/openafs.ko
I am running the 2.6.9-11.ELsmp kernel, but h
Hi,
Let's focus on RHEL4 for the moment, okay?
1) What rpmbuild command do you give?
2) What's the first 20 lines of output from rpmbuild?
-derek
Kurt Seiffert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to work with the SRPM's for 1.4.0rc5.
>
> We are compiling IBM xSeries 346 with Xeon cpu's. W
Because we had to adapt the openssi kernel and make some changes in OpenAFS to
have a good shot a compiling it and make it work.
The patches we have are for that version.
After I have this one working I'll work on 1.4.0rc6.
Ron
>Why are you building 1.2.13 instead of 1.4.0rc6?
>
>-derek
>
>Quoti
Why are you building 1.2.13 instead of 1.4.0rc6?
-derek
Quoting Ron Croonenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
btw: below is part of the msgs that I get to see:
as you can see it does get the kvers right, but then ???
thanks,
Ron
++ ls -d /lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2199.nptl.afs_ssi_9smp
/lib/modules/2.6.
btw: below is part of the msgs that I get to see:
as you can see it does get the kvers right, but then ???
thanks,
Ron
++ ls -d /lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2199.nptl.afs_ssi_9smp
/lib/modules/2.6.5-1.358 /lib/modules/2.6.5-1.358smp
/lib/modules/_2.4.22-1.2199.nptl
/lib/modules/_2.4.22-1.2199.nptl_ssi_
Hello all,
I am trying to compile OpenAFS using "rpmbuild -ba ."
Anyway, the running kernel is:
2.4.22-1.2199.nptl.afs_ssi_9smp
but somehow it compiles it for an older kernel I used,
2.4.22-1.2199.nptl_ssi_9smp.
So probably I need to change something somewhere, do I need to change
the spec
Isn't there something about needing a small percentage of space to be able
to keep the ext3/ext2 filesystem from fragmenting too much? Does this
apply here?
Also, is there a problem with running on ext3? I only ask because I know
openafs can not use journaling filesystems under Solaris.
Thanks,
Hi!
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Frank Burkhardt wrote:
> > Now the question: Are there any repercussions when changing the number
> > of reserved blocks in this way, or are there any subtle side effects on
> > the fileserver?
>
> AFAIK there should be no problem using 'tune2fs -r' or 'tune2fs -m' on
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Stephan Wonczak wrote:
[snip]
> We can't do much about the number of inodes, but we are still
> sitting with the 5% reserved blocks. Over all partitions this adds to a
> lot of wasted space (~500GB).
> Now, obviously we would rather use this space
Hi list!
Quick googling turned up nothing useful, so here goes.
While installing a couple of new fileservers on Linux, we created
several huge vice-partitions, using ext3 on these. Since we were in a bit
of a hurry, we did not tune the mkfs-parameters, so we are left with the
defaults. We can
13 matches
Mail list logo
