--On Tuesday, March 08, 2005 06:35:24 PM -0500 Matthew Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's several problems with it, though. First, as Derek notes, you
> can't build i586 and i686 kernels
Hasn't been relevant for us; we have nothing below i686 (and don't run
AFS in the boot kernels). It
--On March 6, 2005 10:32:24 AM -0500 Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> How do you handle building all the kernel modules for a set of N
> kernels without requiring each binary kernel to be installed?
We require that each binary kernel be installed on the build system,
just as each kernel-
--On Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:53:58 PM -0500 Derrick J Brashear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So far, the results using memcache are: good (but I haven't done any
>> further timing tests). The results using disk cache are: bad (some
>> silent truncation/corruption using Derrick's suggested pa
--On Wednesday, December 22, 2004 05:18:19 PM -0500 "Rudolph T.
Maceyko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But now copying only takes 2 minutes and *so far* I've received the
> file intact. I'll run through a couple more times and write back
> since I also saw *oc
--On Wednesday, December 22, 2004 04:19:52 PM -0500 Derrick J Brashear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I patched as you requested. The transfer of data completes, but
>> the file is becoming silently corrupted now. Here's what Rudy is
>> seeing:
>
> Other people are complaining of issues with a
--On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 09:56:24 PM -0500 Kevin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My new line 80 is:
> code = afsconf_AddKey(tdir, kvno, key->contents, 0);
>
> Is that a safe change to make?
That has worked for us without any problems.
Rudy
___
Ope
--On Monday, November 25, 2002 10:31:03 -0500 Andrew Bacchi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does the RPM build of OpenAFS support TSM?
No, but you can grab the source RPM, update the spec file to add
"--enable-tivoli-tsm" to the configure command line, as I do.
Is there a list of how the RPM is bu
--On Tuesday, August 20, 2002 23:55:41 -0400 Derrick J Brashear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Rudolph T Maceyko wrote:
>
>> --On Monday, August 19, 2002 16:16:52 -0400 Derrick J Brashear
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
OK, this is beginning to sound like superstition. We've been using
ext3 cache partitions for quite a while now with no ill effects...
--On Wednesday, July 10, 2002 09:45:06 -0400 Derek Atkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is why the recommendation is two fold:
> 1) use ext2.
>
Hmmm...
--On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:03:28 -0500 Derek Atkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ls /afs" BAD. Don't do that.
Actually, I'd say "ls -l /afs", "ls -R /afs", "ls -F /afs" are all bad.
"ls /afs" shouldn't be bad. Unless your "ls" does "-F" or something
like it by default.
Ru
I have seen problems similar to the ones reported by Marc Schmitt on
Red Hat 7.x systems when pam_stack is used. When it is *not* used,
there are no pam "hangs'.
FYI,
Rudy
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mail
--On Monday, October 15, 2001 13:45:29 -0400 Derek Atkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Check out www.openafs.org for a bug-list. OpenAFS uses RT for bug
> tracking, so you should be able to see the open bugs list.
I haven't seen this and I just looked at www.openafs.org and STILL
didn't see i
When processes are still accessing afs (e.g., cwd is /afs/...) at the
time a shutdown is occurring things get messy.
The afs shutdown fails to umount /afs (EBUSY) and fails to unload the
module (EBUSY). Then several more umount attempts fail (still EBUSY),
the process gets killed and an oops
13 matches
Mail list logo
