[OpenAFS] Re: Reporting on some recent benchmark results

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:41:00 -0500 Andrew Deason wrote: > That is indeed weird, though. It looks like somewhere we're supposed > to be trimming the trailing slash somewhere (mounting a normal fs with > a trailing slash on the mount dir causes it to show up without the > trailing slash in 'mount' o

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: Reporting on some recent benchmark results

On 2011-04-06 at 14:41, Andrew Deason ( adea...@sinenomine.net ) said: On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Andy Cobaugh wrote: No; I didn't even think that was ours to handle. So, if you stop the client, the AFS 'mount' entry stays there? I assume the multiple AFS lines are identical? What

[OpenAFS] Re: Reporting on some recent benchmark results

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Andy Cobaugh wrote: > > No; I didn't even think that was ours to handle. So, if you stop the > > client, the AFS 'mount' entry stays there? I assume the multiple AFS > > lines are identical? What kernel? > > Lines are identical, as such: > > AFS on /afs/

Re: [OpenAFS] Re: Reporting on some recent benchmark results

On 2011-04-06 at 14:25, Andrew Deason ( adea...@sinenomine.net ) said: On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Andy Cobaugh wrote: One observation regarding 1.6.0pre4: In stop'ing and start'ing the client via the init script, AFS shows up as being mounted several times in the output of 'mount'

[OpenAFS] Re: Reporting on some recent benchmark results

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Andy Cobaugh wrote: > One observation regarding 1.6.0pre4: In stop'ing and start'ing the > client via the init script, AFS shows up as being mounted several > times in the output of 'mount' - is that to be expected? No; I didn't even think that was ours to

[OpenAFS] Re: Reporting on some recent benchmark results

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:18:54 -0400 Garrett Wollman wrote: > See the full report at > . Raw > results and test data are available at > . What were the "recommended" options used? -- Andrew Deason ade