On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Christopher D. Clausen" writes:
>> Rainer Toebbicke 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
>>>
Tom Keiser writes:
> Ok. That's a perfectly fair rationale. What I still don't understand
> is why people think _OpenAFS_ should strive to ship (and thus implicitly
> endorse) code that introduces such non-determinism (especially given
> that, as Andrew pointed out, under DAFS enabling fast-res
Rainer, I don't mean to pick on you, but I see this probabilistic
argument all too frequently; I think it requires response. I'll
readily concede that over the short-term while we are triaging bugs
that a probabilistic argument, such as the one you make below, is
perfectly reasonable. After all,
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)
wrote:
> In message <20100618093541.46bc13bc.adea...@sinenomine.net>,Andrew Deason
> writes:
>>It's pretty easy to make a supergroup if it's turned on; you may not
>>realize it's a specific feature to turn on. Once you have done so, your
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Stephan Wiesand
wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 20:38 , Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Derrick Brashear writes:
>>>
dynroot with an empty CellServDB works like this, *as long as* the
cell has AFSDB (
On Jun 18, 2010, at 20:38 , Derrick Brashear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Derrick Brashear writes:
>>
>>> dynroot with an empty CellServDB works like this, *as long as* the
>>> cell has AFSDB (or in 1.5, SRV) records.
>>
>>> we could (and possibly should) m
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Stephan Wiesand
wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 20:34 , Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Derrick Brashear writes:
>>
>>> dynroot with an empty CellServDB works like this, *as long as* the
>>> cell has AFSDB (or in 1.5, SRV) records.
>
> wouldn't dynroot with a CellServDB l
In message <20100618093541.46bc13bc.adea...@sinenomine.net>,Andrew Deason
writes:
>It's pretty easy to make a supergroup if it's turned on; you may not
>realize it's a specific feature to turn on. Once you have done so, your
>ptdb is now incompatible with ptservers without supergroups enabled.
th
On Jun 18, 2010, at 20:34 , Russ Allbery wrote:
> Derrick Brashear writes:
>
>> dynroot with an empty CellServDB works like this, *as long as* the
>> cell has AFSDB (or in 1.5, SRV) records.
wouldn't dynroot with a CellServDB listing just the local cell would work like
this?
>> we could (and
>> But the I don't think that it is good that I have to find ltu.se in a
>> long list of sites. Especially as I will get a pause if i click on one
>> by mistake.
>>
>>
>> But maybe the CellServeDB is not really the problem, the problem is
>> that the client will list all sites in it by default. Wha
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Derrick Brashear writes:
>
>> dynroot with an empty CellServDB works like this, *as long as* the
>> cell has AFSDB (or in 1.5, SRV) records.
>
>> we could (and possibly should) make things behave as if CellServDB is
>> empty, with a full cell
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 20:32, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mattias Pantzare writes:
>
>> If AFS would suddenly get popular and everybody started to add their
>> sites to CellServeDB you would have a problem just by listing /afs.
>
> Not with regular ls, or even with ls with stat if you enable fakestat.
Derrick Brashear writes:
> dynroot with an empty CellServDB works like this, *as long as* the
> cell has AFSDB (or in 1.5, SRV) records.
> we could (and possibly should) make things behave as if CellServDB is
> empty, with a full cellservdb, so an override of DNS is possible but
> /afs is not "j
Mattias Pantzare writes:
> If AFS would suddenly get popular and everybody started to add their
> sites to CellServeDB you would have a problem just by listing /afs.
Not with regular ls, or even with ls with stat if you enable fakestat.
windlord:~> time ls -l /afs > /dev/null
0.000u 0.000s 0:00
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 20:03, Phillip Moore
> wrote:
>> This is a *classic* case of blaming the wrong software product for a
>> problem.
>> It's not the CellServDB that's not user friendly, it's the software product
>> making stupid, in
On 6/18/2010 2:08 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> When you try to open projects it will only list directories that
> contain project files or other directories. No, I don't think that
> that is good.
>
> But the I don't think that it is good that I have to find ltu.se in a
> long list of sites. Esp
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:23, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Mattias Pantzare
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 18:15, Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mattias Pantzare
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 20:03, Phillip Moore wrote:
> This is a *classic* case of blaming the wrong software product for a
> problem.
> It's not the CellServDB that's not user friendly, it's the software product
> making stupid, incorrect assumptions about the filesystem.
In this case it is both
On 2010-06-18 at 20:08, Mattias Pantzare ( pant...@ludd.ltu.se ) said:
But maybe the CellServeDB is not really the problem, the problem is
that the client will list all sites in it by default. What if we just
changed the default to not list sites other than the default site
(that the installatio
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:23, Derrick Brashear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 18:15, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mattias Pantzare
>>> wrote:
Is it not time to remove the default CellServDB? Or
This is a *classic* case of blaming the wrong software product for a
problem.
It's not the CellServDB that's not user friendly, it's the software product
making stupid, incorrect assumptions about the filesystem.
Would you accuse DNS of being broken it some brain-dead software product
wasn't "use
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 18:15, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mattias Pantzare
>> wrote:
>>> Is it not time to remove the default CellServDB? Or at least remove
>>> not working entries?
>>>
>>> Some program
"Christopher D. Clausen" writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The code is dire verging on unsupportable and really needs to be
>> rewritten.
> If the code is so bad, why was it accepted in the first place?
Because we didn't have the code review mechanism that we have now, the
coding standards that
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 18:15, Derrick Brashear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mattias Pantzare
> wrote:
>> Is it not time to remove the default CellServDB? Or at least remove
>> not working entries?
>>
>> Some programs try to be user friendly by doing the equivalent of echo
>> */* i
Russ Allbery wrote:
"Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" writes:
Russ Allbery writes:
I definitely agree that this is where we should go. I don't think
we're quite ready to be there right now, unless you feel that we should
enable supergroups by default. :) (I can't reasonably turn it off in
the D
"Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> I definitely agree that this is where we should go. I don't think
>> we're quite ready to be there right now, unless you feel that we should
>> enable supergroups by default. :) (I can't reasonably turn it off in
>> the Debian pack
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> Is it not time to remove the default CellServDB? Or at least remove
> not working entries?
>
> Some programs try to be user friendly by doing the equivalent of echo
> */* in /afs. That will take a _very_ long time (if it ever finishes)
>
Is it not time to remove the default CellServDB? Or at least remove
not working entries?
Some programs try to be user friendly by doing the equivalent of echo
*/* in /afs. That will take a _very_ long time (if it ever finishes)
with the default CellServDB.
And it is not very user friendly to list
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:18 -0400
> Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
>> > For the client, if it's a windows client, I don't really know. But
>> > in general I assume you would stop the client, add "-rxpck X" to the
>> > options (wherever you edit
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> --On Thursday, June 17, 2010 04:12:48 PM -0500 Andrew Deason
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:54:25 -0500
>> Andrew Deason wrote:
>>
>>> And as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, you need to wait for
>>> the VG hierarchy su
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:57:18 -0400
Derrick Brashear wrote:
> > For the client, if it's a windows client, I don't really know. But
> > in general I assume you would stop the client, add "-rxpck X" to the
> > options (wherever you edit the client options), and start it again.
>
> it shouldn't actu
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:51:01 -0400
> Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Claudio Prono
>> wrote:
>> > How i can increase the -rxpck on the Client or the server? is not
>> > clear to me...
>>
>> add the switch to t
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:51:01 -0400
Derrick Brashear wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Claudio Prono
> wrote:
> > How i can increase the -rxpck on the Client or the server? is not
> > clear to me...
>
> add the switch to the fileserver switches in the bos bnode.
Specifically, that's for
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:20:40 -0400
"Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" wrote:
> In message <8739wluuw3@windlord.stanford.edu>,Russ Allbery writes:
> >I definitely agree that this is where we should go. I don't think
> >we're quite ready to be there right now, unless you feel that we
> >should enabl
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Claudio Prono wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Deason ha scritto:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:06:11 +0200
> Claudio Prono 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
In message <4c1b40ad.1040...@pclella.cern.ch>,Rainer Toebbicke writes:
>I beg to disagree: the Volume/Vnode back-end has by no means the same problems
>that a file system might have. Damages there will never wildly destroy random
>items on disk, as you would have to be afraid using in a file syst
In message <8739wluuw3@windlord.stanford.edu>,Russ Allbery writes:
>I definitely agree that this is where we should go. I don't think we're
>quite ready to be there right now, unless you feel that we should enable
>supergroups by default. :) (I can't reasonably turn it off in the Debian
>pac
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
On 6/18/2010 4:26 AM, Anders Magnusson wrote:
Hi,
we'we discovered a small bug related to mount points which has appeared
in some recent windows client. Testing with 1.5.74; mount points
cannot be created
neither from the explorer shell nor from the command prompt if
On 6/18/2010 4:26 AM, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we'we discovered a small bug related to mount points which has appeared
> in some recent windows client. Testing with 1.5.74; mount points
> cannot be created
> neither from the explorer shell nor from the command prompt if referring to
> a
Jeffrey Hutzelman schrieb:
Really, I consider enable-fast-restart to be extremely dangerous.
It should have gone away long ago.
I realize some people believe that speed is more important than not
losing data, but I don't agree, and I don't think it's an appropriate
position for a filesystem
> I'd really like us to standardise on a _small_ (ideally one) set of
> supported configurations which we suggest for each release - and for
> the binary packages that we point users at to use that set of
> configurations across all platforms. It's the only way that we're
> ever going to manage to
> > 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 used for backup purposes,
> [ sni
Hi,
we'we discovered a small bug related to mount points which has appeared
in some recent windows client. Testing with 1.5.74; mount points
cannot be created
neither from the explorer shell nor from the command prompt if referring to
an UNC path. This worked with older clients (like 1.5.59)
Andrew Deason ha scritto:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:06:11 +0200
> Claudio Prono 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.
>>
>
> Pl
--On Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:38:18 PM +0100 Simon Wilkinson
wrote:
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 sup
--On Thursday, June 17, 2010 01:45:14 PM -0500 "Christopher D. Clausen"
wrote:
I have heard that, but I have never experienced any problems myself in
many years of running that way. In general the way I see it is that if
the power goes out, my server stays up for a little longer due to its UP
--On Thursday, June 17, 2010 04:12:48 PM -0500 Andrew Deason
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:54:25 -0500
Andrew Deason wrote:
And as has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, you need to wait for
the VG hierarchy summary scan to complete, no matter how fast salvaging
is or how many you do i
--On Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:59:29 AM -0700 Russ Allbery
wrote:
I'm quite sure that, after an unclean crash, your Windows server doesn't
remount the file system without doing a consistency check. No operating
system treats its file systems that way.
MS-DOS did. Of course, that hardly qu
48 matches
Mail list logo
