On 17 May 2011, at 10:54, Mike Legg mike.l...@u-blox.com wrote:
We are looking to evaluate OpenAFS and were wondering where the best place to
get initial version / platform information. We would like to test OpenAFS on
CentOS or Debian but are not sure which versions of the application to
Quoting Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net:
If you want to look at this further, capturing network traffic to/from
an idle client that triggers this would help say why. ...
Or, if you turn the fileserver debugging up to at least 2 ... you
could see how often you see this message:
On Tue, 17 May 2011 14:29:08 +0200
Jaap Winius jwin...@umrk.nl wrote:
Somehow I'm not too interested in capturing lots of packets if you're
unsure that will do any good.
Well, I'm sure it will aid in understanding the 1.4 situation, but
whether it will actually help solve your problem I'm
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk writes:
The version question is a tricky one. You should definitely avoid the
1.5 series - this was a development series which has now been superseded
by the 1.6 prereleases. Recommending one of 1.4 and 1.6 is harder. 1.4
is our stable series which is in
On May 17, 2011, at 19:31 , Russ Allbery wrote:
Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk writes:
The version question is a tricky one. You should definitely avoid the
1.5 series - this was a development series which has now been superseded
by the 1.6 prereleases. Recommending one of 1.4 and 1.6
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
On May 17, 2011, at 19:31 , Russ Allbery wrote:
If you're willing to test on Debian unstable, the version of the
OpenAFS packages currently in Debian unstable should be close to what
will show up as 1.6.0pre6 (and has the data corruption bug
On May 17, 2011, at 21:34 , Russ Allbery wrote:
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
On May 17, 2011, at 19:31 , Russ Allbery wrote:
If you're willing to test on Debian unstable, the version of the
OpenAFS packages currently in Debian unstable should be close to what
will show
Stephan Wiesand stephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
Ok, I concur.
Could someone confirm that this bug is not present in 1.6.0preX where X
5 ?
That's correct. It was introduced in pre5.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
On 05/17/2011 08:49 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stephan Wiesandstephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
Ok, I concur.
Could someone confirm that this bug is not present in 1.6.0preX where X
5 ?
That's correct. It was introduced in pre5.
Hrm.. just to make sure i'm not about to open a can of
Hugo Monteiro hugo.monte...@fct.unl.pt writes:
On 05/17/2011 08:49 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stephan Wiesandstephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
Ok, I concur. Could someone confirm that this bug is not present in
1.6.0preX where X 5 ?
That's correct. It was introduced in pre5.
Hrm.. just to
Hello all,
We have a 1.4.12 openafs server, which is a VM sitting on a SAN storage
(Xen based Oracle VM), having 2GB of ram and 4 vcpus.
After some test runs, we were a bit displeased with the obtained
transfer rate.
Tests were made using dd, with files greater than the client cache size
Hugo Monteiro hugo.monte...@fct.unl.pt writes:
- Low performance and high discrepancy between test results
Transfer rates (only a few) hardly touched 30MB/s between the server and
a client sitting on the same network, connected via GB ethernet. Most of
the times that transfer rate is around
On 05/17/2011 10:56 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hugo Monteirohugo.monte...@fct.unl.pt writes:
On 05/17/2011 08:49 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Stephan Wiesandstephan.wies...@desy.de writes:
Ok, I concur. Could someone confirm that this bug is not present in
1.6.0preX where X 5 ?
That's correct.
On 5/17/2011 6:20 PM, Hugo Monteiro wrote:
Ok, i forgot to mention that the pre5 clients i was talking about are
windows clients. I'm then, i assume.
The bug does not affect Windows clients.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 05/17/2011 11:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hugo Monteirohugo.monte...@fct.unl.pt writes:
- Low performance and high discrepancy between test results
Transfer rates (only a few) hardly touched 30MB/s between the server and
a client sitting on the same network, connected via GB ethernet. Most
On 05/17/2011 11:23 PM, Hugo Monteiro wrote:
On 05/17/2011 11:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hugo Monteirohugo.monte...@fct.unl.pt writes:
- Low performance and high discrepancy between test results
Transfer rates (only a few) hardly touched 30MB/s between the server
and
a client sitting on the
Okay, what does all of this *mean*? :)
syncsite# vldb_check vldb.DB0
Header's maximum volume id is 2023892829 and largest id found in VLDB is
2023892825
Name Hash 225: Bad entry at 318748: Not a valid vlentry
Name Hash 524: Bad entry at 237940: Not a valid vlentry
Name Hash 532: Bad entry at
17 matches
Mail list logo
