On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:49 PM Jeffrey E Altman wrote:
> The question for cell admins is whether anyone is aware of any internal
> scripts which process the output of "pts membership" which will break as
> a result of the inclusion of the implicit groups "system:anyuser" and
> "system:authuser"
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Jeffrey Altman
wrote:
> Tomorrow(*)
Thanks for the update/reminder. And thanks for your
willingness to build "one last time" for Windows 10.
It really is "above and beyond" what anyone has any
right to expect.
Personally, I have no idea if Windows 10 will be
e
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> For all of these situations where the Foundation would provide the
> ability to sign binaries, there are those legal considerations, then,
> but also other things. The Foundation needs to have a point of contact
> for any of these, and n
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Joyce wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> I'd like to learn more about this. However since you sell a proprietary fork
> of OpenAFS, it's difficult to discount your possible incentive to spread FUD
> regarding OpenAFS.
>
> Therefore can you provide URIs with specific inf
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> Thinking about it though, since RPM goes off of what's in the RPM
> database and not what's on the filesystem, I wouldn't think that this
> would be working for *any* Fedora 17+ system, regardless of how it's
> installed - there's nothing i
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Jeffrey Altman
wrote:
...
> Its an accounting system.
You mean OpenAFS is not being rewritten in Cobol in honor
of Admiral Hopper :-)
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailm
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Coy Hile wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks that
> Linux distributions doing this is utterly brain-dead?
I suppose the only good news is that in IPv6 only ::1/128
is loopback. So such "interesting" choices will hopefully
not be pr
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> 'discard' I've heard may help or hurt performance depending on usage
And on the particular SSD vendor (really the firmware), when it
receives the (SATA) TRIM, or the (SAS) UNMAP command.
Some of the firmware implementations can actually
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Steve Simmons wrote:
> Without meaning to insult the average system administrator
Well, since all system administrators are above average,
you can not have insulted anyone (yet) :-).
I agree with both what you and Russ are saying.
It all depends on your orga
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
...
> We have AFS clients on all of our servers, including the AFS servers, and
> avoid unintentional dependencies on AFS (for all services) by just being
> careful.
While I trust you to be careful (and I would trust myself to be careful :-),
I
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Brandon Allbery
wrote:
> Subset of, yes. All? So many sites on the Internet can't be accessed
> reliably from the many OSes that do PMTUD? Somehow, I doubt.
If you want to be sure, use the RFC mandated minimum MTU
of 576 for IPv4 (1280 for IPv6). You want lar
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> OpenAFS 1.7.18 is the next a series of OpenAFS clients for the Microsoft
> Windows platform that is implemented as a native file system.
I am not asking for it, just curious if OpenAFS will (eventually)
make it to the Windows App Store(*), j
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> What are the missing pieces needed to deploy RxK5?
> I am going to start with the assumption that it will not
> pass the standards process until after there are several
> people running it in production.
Please read https://www.ietf.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Ted Creedon wrote:
> The IP (intellectual property) in YFS seems to be derived from AFS's IP.
>
> If that case can be made, IBM or any other entity could force YFS back into
> the open source domain.
I am confident that YFSi would have dotted and crossed the appro
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)
wrote:
> we are running lustre alongside afs right now. lustre is generally
> much much faster than afs. the downside is that the security model
> is essentially nfsv3. anyone with root on a lustre client is essentially
> any other
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
> Due to drastic differences in OS libraries present, those (like us),
> who use @sys in PATH, get bitten. That is, our build of AppX for
> 'amd64_linux26' that was built on RHEL 5 will not work on RHEL 6,
> and we need to support both.
In
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 06:43, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> I was curious if anyone's tried OpenAFS on Apple's 10.8 developer
> preview yet? How did it go?
If they told you, they would have to kill you :-)
More seriously, Apple is very protective of their
assets, (and some might call it secretive to the
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 09:45, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
> Apparently no i386 more in rhel6 and clones.
Somewhere along the line Fedora (and now RHEL)
dropped i386. You have to target i686.
Gary
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
ht
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 02:58, Harald Barth wrote:
...
> IMHO it should be disabled completely if there are no RFC1918
> interfaces on the client and enabled if there are such interfaces.
> A command line flag to override in either direction would help
> as well (for debugging, testing and strange
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 06:58, Coy Hile wrote:
...
> Does RHEL 6 have the same key too new issue as well?
Yes.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 14:42, Anders Magnusson wrote:
...
> No, state-of-the-art HP workstation. Note that this is more-or-less the
> behaviour
> of all our Win7 machines with the IFS client, all of them are really new
> hardware.
This is a WAG, but high end workstations sometimes have
network
> My proposal, going forwards, is to not produce security advisories or
> releases for these local denial of service attacks. Local issues that can
> result in privilege escalation, or denial of service attacks that can be
> performed by those outside a sites infrastructure would still result in
> Not sure why anyone would want to use anything other than Teradactyl.
As with all else, it depends on your requirements.
Teradactyl is clearly a solution targeting the enterprise
space with enterprise capability, support, overheads,
and pricing. TSM and NetBackup target the same
space (althoug
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 15:24, Simon Wilkinson wrote:
>
> On 28 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Gary Gatling wrote:
>
>> I am in charge of several afs servers in our college. Right now there are
>> 5 afs servers running on 5 SPARC based servers. We are ditching Solaris
>> since it sucks so bad and are going t
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:47, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>> c) Just state that 1.4.5 is "too old" to bother
>
> possibly that being today.
While I tend to be of the opinion that at some point you
just have to throw away the bath water (regardless of
the baby squid that has been living in it for a
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:52, Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
> Are we attempting to solve a problem that no one actually has?
I am sure someone has encountered it. Someone has encountered
every problem. Whether someone reports it is another issue.
I am a proponent of delivering solutions which
> XP does have the same problem that 2000 does in that it is no longer
> supported by Microsoft without an extremely expensive support contract.
> Given the fact that so many sites still have XP and Server 2003 systems
> in production, I can't imagine deprecating support for XP for at least
> anoth
> Windows 2000 is now more than ten years old. If your organization would be
> significantly impacted by removing support for Windows 2000, please let us
> know. My personal opinion is that it is time to declare Windows 2000
> unsupported.
I would have to look at the official dates, but my recol
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 22:56, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 30/09/2010 22:42, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 20:09, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> btw: according to the leaked memo Oracle will provide source
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 20:09, Robert Milkowski wrote:
...
> btw: according to the leaked memo Oracle will provide source code for
> Solaris, including ZFS, everytime they produce a new Solaris release. This
> would mean that it will still be open source, but development wouldn't
> happen in open
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 20:51, Booker Bense wrote:
> [1]- "But I can get a 2 TB disk at fry's for $150..."
Then one overpaid. The current Fry's flyer shows 2TB for $99 :-)
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openaf
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 05:19, Stephan Wiesand wrote:
...
> Anyway, the next best option if ZFS is not available is to run parity checks
> on all your arrays regularly.
Perhaps it is the best one can do, but be aware that
a (rare, but real) failure mode of disks is that they
return the contents
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 00:04, Vincent Fox wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 04:13 PM, Rich Sudlow wrote:
>>
>> that being said we're also looking for fileserver
>> alternatives due to Oracle takeover.
>
> What's your reasoning here?
>
> If anything I'd expect them to put effort into optimizing it
> which
ted creedon wrote:
Have openafs users been affected by
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2006/m06-16.pdf ?
Anyone who is a "Fed" (or a Fed contractor) has had to deal
with that memo, and address the issues (quite some time
ago, actually). Primarily, the point is to insure there is
not
34 matches
Mail list logo
