I have a situation on a new OpenAFS 1.4.11 server (sunx86_510; OpenAFS
compiled with Sun Studio 12) where the fileserver keeps salvaging the
partition repeatedly and does not actually start the fileserver. It
is a namei fileserver on a ZFS partition. The salvage logs do not
indicate any failures
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Atro Tossavainen
atro.tossavainen+open...@helsinki.fi wrote:
I have a situation on a new OpenAFS 1.4.11 server (sunx86_510; OpenAFS
compiled with Sun Studio 12) where the fileserver keeps salvaging the
partition repeatedly and does not actually start the
So there's no FileLog.old that keeps being refreshed with say a
registration failure?
Because this sounds like that problem.
It was that problem. fileserver coredumped at startup regardless of
what it tried to do (even a manual fileserver -help caused a core
dump). Upgrading from 1.4.11 to
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Atro Tossavainen
atro.tossavainen+open...@helsinki.fi wrote:
So there's no FileLog.old that keeps being refreshed with say a
registration failure?
Because this sounds like that problem.
It was that problem. fileserver coredumped at startup regardless of
what
Good to hear you have it running with 1.4.12. We too run 1.4.11 on
Solaris (but on sparc) with namei servers on ZFS, and have not seen this.
So I am curious as to what may have happened.
I must have messed up somehow by assigning the server a new IP address
(in addition to its existing one),
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:17:41 +0200 (EET)
Atro Tossavainen atro.tossavainen+open...@helsinki.fi wrote:
So there's no FileLog.old that keeps being refreshed with say a
registration failure?
Because this sounds like that problem.
It was that problem. fileserver coredumped at startup
On 24 Mar 2010, at 15:14, Andrew Deason wrote:
That's... interesting. Would you be willing to share a core
Absolutely not meant as a personal comment, but it's important to remember
fileserver cores may contain your cell-wide key, and you definitely don't want
to share them publicly without
Absolutely not meant as a personal comment, but it's important to
remember fileserver cores may contain your cell-wide key, and you
definitely don't want to share them publicly without verifying that
they don't.
And ensure your efforts to remove the KeyFile content do not
accidentially
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:29:48 -0400
Dan Hyde d...@umich.edu wrote:
Absolutely not meant as a personal comment, but it's important to
remember fileserver cores may contain your cell-wide key, and you
definitely don't want to share them publicly without verifying that
they don't.
Augh,
On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Steven Jenkins wrote:
Could you provide filesystem information? (e.g., what filesystem, what
parameters given/used by mkfs, etc) That information is often quite
significant.
So smart of me to drop the note and then leave for vacation. Selected file
system values
On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:37 AM, Tom Keiser wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Derrick Brashear sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Steve Simmons s...@umich.edu wrote:
We've been seeing issues for a while that seem to relate to the number of
volumes in a single vice
On Mar 18, 2010, at 6:43 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
In the 1.4 series, the volume hash table size is just 128 which
would produce (assuming even distributions) average hash chains of
160 to 220 volumes per bucket given the number of volumes you
describe. This is quite long.
In the 1.5
Steve Simmons s...@umich.edu writes:
Our estimate too. But before drilling down, it seemed worth checking if
anyone else has a similar server - ext3 with 14,000 or more volumes in a
single vice partition - and has seen a difference. Note, tho, that it's
not #inodes or total disk usage in the
On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Simmons s...@umich.edu writes:
Our estimate too. But before drilling down, it seemed worth checking if
anyone else has a similar server - ext3 with 14,000 or more volumes in a
single vice partition - and has seen a difference. Note,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Steve Simmons s...@umich.edu wrote:
On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:37 AM, Tom Keiser wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Derrick Brashear sha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Steve Simmons s...@umich.edu wrote:
We've been seeing issues for a
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:43:32 -0400
Tom Keiser tkei...@sinenomine.net wrote:
What I was trying to say is if the observed performance regression
involves either the volserver, or the salvager, then it could involve
partition lock contention. However, this will only come into play if
you're
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:43:32 -0400
Tom Keiser tkei...@sinenomine.net wrote:
What I was trying to say is if the observed performance regression
involves either the volserver, or the salvager, then it could involve
17 matches
Mail list logo
