Russ Allbery schrieb:
I'm aware of the following (largish) things that we want to deprecate or
remove:
* --enable-fast-restart and --enable-bitmap-later are earlier attempts to
solve the problem that is solved in a more complete way by demand
attach. Demand attach will be available in
Quoting Lars Schimmer l.schim...@cgv.tugraz.at:
Simple - Load Balancing. Imagine a cell at three countries hold together
by small ISDN lines - a RO copy local to each faculty and the have fast
access.
Yes, but In an organization where it is only necessary for an
administrator to
either give
Considering it a showstopper when you admit one graph earlier that
you're already running with a patched tree seems a bit overblown,
perhaps? The tree is now gold and patches may no longer be applied?
Derrick
On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:30 AM, Rainer Toebbicke r...@pclella.cern.ch
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:46:25 -0400
Jason Edgecombe ja...@rampaginggeek.com wrote:
We're using uss in a non-kaserver environment. I know that we could do
without it, but it's nice to have. If uss weren't available, an
equivalent tool would need to be available.
I haven't used uss and so don't
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:06:34 +0200
Jaap Winius jwin...@umrk.nl wrote:
In an organization where it is only necessary for an administrator to
either give users read-write access to volumes, or no access at all,
what would be the advantage of creating any read-only replicas, beyond
those
Rainer Toebbicke r...@pclella.cern.ch wrote:
Derrick Brashear schrieb:
Considering it a showstopper when you admit one graph earlier that
you're already running with a patched tree seems a bit overblown,
perhaps? The tree is now gold and patches may no longer be applied?
No, of course not.
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:06:11 +0200
Claudio Prono claudio.pr...@atpss.net wrote:
I have some problems of speed with AFS. I have a Intel Xeon 3.2 Ghz
with 1 Gb of ram, Symbios Logic 53c1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320
SCSI (rev 07) and external array MSA500.
Platform and OpenAFS version of
Am Donnerstag 17 Juni 2010, 01:06:34 schrieb Jaap Winius:
This subject is confusing to me, because I've learned that once a
client has encountered a read-write mount point, it becomes biased
towards accessing only read-write replicas beyond it, ignoring any and
all perfectly usable
Christopher D. Clausen cclau...@acm.org writes:
Rainer Toebbicke r...@pclella.cern.ch wrote:
No, of course not.
It would be painful to have to put back the '--enable-fast-restart and
--enable-bitmap-later' code if you removed them, probably dangerous. My
plea is to keep them in as an
Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net writes:
I haven't used uss and so don't know how useful it is to keep in the
OpenAFS tree, but perhaps something like it should be spun off into
another project; I'd imagine it's one of those things that many
organizations write themselves at some point or
On 17 Jun 2010, at 16:29, Andrew Deason wrote:
If you're only using volumes for home directories, or things like group
collaboration space, then RO volumes are not very useful to you.
Actually, that's definitely not true in my experience. See below.
As you mentioned, they can also 'kinda' be
Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
Chris, to check, are you currently using --enable-fast-restart or
--enable-bitmap-later?
Yes, both of them.
Please understand that neither of those options are recommended now,
whether you have DAFS enabled or not. I consider --enable-fast-restart in
Christopher D. Clausen cclau...@acm.org writes:
Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
Chris, to check, are you currently using --enable-fast-restart or
--enable-bitmap-later?
Yes, both of them.
Aie.
I have heard that, but I have never experienced any problems myself in
many years of
On 17 Jun 2010, at 19:45, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
Its fine to not have it enabled by default, but I can't see why one would
remove the functionality from the source tree.
Because every different configuration option you have doubles the complexity of
testing the code. What actually
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:35:13 +0100
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
As you mentioned, they can also 'kinda' be used for backup purposes,
[ snip ]
I definitely wouldn't recommend that for home dirs or anything like
that, though, since from the user's perspective it looks like their
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
On 17 Jun 2010, at 19:45, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
Its fine to not have it enabled by default, but I can't see why one
would remove the functionality from the source tree.
Because every different configuration option you have doubles the
Hi Simon,
On Jun 17, 2010, at 21:01 , Simon Wilkinson wrote:
On 17 Jun 2010, at 19:45, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
Its fine to not have it enabled by default, but I can't see why one would
remove the functionality from the source tree.
Because every different configuration option you
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 21:01 , Simon Wilkinson wrote:
Because every different configuration option you have doubles the
complexity of testing the code. What actually tends to happen is that
stuff that isn't enabled by default never actually gets
Am Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 21:30:23 schrieb Andrew Deason:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:59:29 -0700
Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
Christopher D. Clausen cclau...@acm.org writes:
I mean I occationally see NTFS errors in the event log on Windows
servers. Windows doesn't take the disk
Hi Russ,
On Jun 17, 2010, at 21:44 , Russ Allbery wrote:
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 21:01 , Simon Wilkinson wrote:
Because every different configuration option you have doubles the
complexity of testing the code. What actually tends to happen is
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 21:44 , Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes, absolutely. It's one of the reasons why 1.6 has taken so long.
There probably isn't any other sane way to drop in a major, disruptive
change, but certainly the long-term goal is to ensure
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 21:44 , Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes, absolutely. It's one of the reasons why 1.6 has taken so long.
There probably isn't any other sane way to drop in a
Steven Jenkins steven.jenk...@gmail.com writes:
I thought that enabling DAFS to be on by default was the major feature
of 1.6.
Shipping DAFS and declaring it supported is the major feature of 1.6.
Making it the default is another question entirely.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steven Jenkins steven.jenk...@gmail.com writes:
I thought that enabling DAFS to be on by default was the major feature
of 1.6.
Shipping DAFS and declaring it supported is the major feature of 1.6.
Making it the default is another question
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk writes:
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:29, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steven Jenkins steven.jenk...@gmail.com writes:
I thought that enabling DAFS to be on by default was the major feature
of 1.6.
Shipping DAFS and declaring it supported is the major feature of 1.6.
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:36:13 +0100
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
The difficulty here is - what should packagers build? If DAFS isn't on
by default, then most folk won't actually get the benefit of running
it unless they build their own AFS servers. I suspect that shipping
1.6 with
Am Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 22:54:25 schrieb Andrew Deason:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:01:08 +0200
Christof Hanke christof.ha...@rzg.mpg.de wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2010 21:30:23 schrieb Andrew Deason:
And in particular, NTFS and other journalled filesystems have the
advantage of a
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:20:46 -0500
Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:06:32 +0200
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de wrote:
sorry, I disagree. If you (the developers and the gatekeepers) are
sure that DAFS is the way forward, and reasonably close to
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
There is that. I intend to ship with DAFS enabled for Debian, but the
Debian packages have always taken a fairly aggressive approach to enabling
features. (They have had supergroups enabled for quite some time, for
example, and also enable
omall...@msu.edu writes:
Pthreads appears to be the only major feature in the 1.6 release.
I'm not sure where you got that impression, but this is not the case.
There are several different features in the 1.5 series, but pthreads is
not one of them; OpenAFS already supports pthreaded file
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk writes:
On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
There is that. I intend to ship with DAFS enabled for Debian, but the
Debian packages have always taken a fairly aggressive approach to
enabling features. (They have had supergroups enabled for quite
if we do this, we should consider naming the dafs servers something
else. then the binaries can truly coexist and be documented as such
(not just packaging-renamed)
Derrick
On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:38:18 +0100
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net wrote:
...
My current feeling is that it would be great if we could ship both
fileservers, side by side, with different executable names - but I
haven't looked at any of the code to see how complex this would be to
achieve.
hello,
I am having problems when using Network Identity Manager and Openafs.
When I try to obtain tokens for kerberos 5 and my AFS cell I get the kerberos
TGT, but no AFS tokens.
It gives me an error saying Credentials could not be obtained for cell cell
name. On the
Kerberos KDC, I get this
34 matches
Mail list logo
