In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,David Thompson writes:
>> i suspect you will only see this bug if your filesystem containing the
>> cache is very close to full.
>
>We currently run with a cache set at boot time at 75% of the partition
>size, and this has reduced the frequency of the problem to clos
We currently run with a cache set at boot time at 75% of the partition
size, and this has reduced the frequency of the problem to close enough
to zero for us. At previous higher values (85% ??) we still saw this on
an infrequent but regular basis (across 100s of hosts).
Every one of our boxes
Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Mike Garrison write
s:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
Obviously we need to revisit this. For the record I have never
produced it on my own test hardware.
I've never seen this occur on any of our numerous Lin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Mike Garrison write
s:
>On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>> Obviously we need to revisit this. For the record I have never
>> produced it on my own test hardware.
>
>I've never seen this occur on any of our numerous Linux machines.
>Granted, the
Kris at the time could produce it fairly reliably on his wife's
machine. Perhaps he can fill us in on where he was.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Mike Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
> > Obviously we need to revisit this. For the r
On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
Obviously we need to revisit this. For the record I have never
produced it on my own test hardware.
I've never seen this occur on any of our numerous Linux machines.
Granted, they're running 2.6.x and not 2.4.x.
--
Mike Garrison
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Jeff Blaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there substantial reason to believe that this has been
> addressed between 1.4.6 and 1.4.7pre3?
Nope. I can pretty much assure it it's not fixed there.
___
OpenAFS-info mailin
Is there substantial reason to believe that this has been
addressed between 1.4.6 and 1.4.7pre3? The boxes that (I
would guess) experience this are beefy/fast boxes. Our
hosts in question are production machines, not ones we can
perform OpenAFS testing on unless there is a clear case
for the spe
If you wish the test something, please test 1.4.7-pre3
http://www.openafs.org/release/openafs-1.4.7pre3.html
Jeff Blaine wrote:
Derrick et al,
~:maverick> uname -a
Linux maverick 2.4.21-53.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Nov 14 03:46:35 EST 2007
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
~:maverick> strings /usr/vice/
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Jeff Blaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Derrick et al,
>
> ~:maverick> uname -a
> Linux maverick 2.4.21-53.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Nov 14 03:46:35 EST 2007 x86_64
> x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> ~:maverick> strings /usr/vice/etc/afsd | grep OpenAFS
> @(#) OpenAFS 1.4.6 b
Derrick et al,
~:maverick> uname -a
Linux maverick 2.4.21-53.ELsmp #1 SMP Wed Nov 14 03:46:35 EST 2007
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
~:maverick> strings /usr/vice/etc/afsd | grep OpenAFS
@(#) OpenAFS 1.4.6 built 2008-03-04
~:maverick> pwd
/afs/rcf/user/jblaine
~:maverick> tar xf /mtc/raid8/ic
It's 2 more months. Just wondering if anything came of
this. We have users bitten by this bug every week on
Linux boxes and have to explain it away.
Jeff Blaine wrote:
Any word on the testing outcome?
> Testing scheduled for that (and potential impact, if any) later
> today.
On Feb 6, 2008 8:37 AM, Jeff Blaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any word on the testing outcome?
>
> > Testing scheduled for that (and potential impact, if any) later
> > today.
>
>
work (continues to) intervene)d(
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAF
Any word on the testing outcome?
> Testing scheduled for that (and potential impact, if any) later
> today.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
I assume that your definition of cache size is correct (using Transarc
paths it is /usr/vice/etc/cacheinfo)
Jonathan Wheeler
e-Science Centre
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Blaine
> Sent: 31 January 2008 16:42
>
> 36000 fre
On Jan 31, 2008 12:10 PM, Jeff Blaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, /cache is an ext3 filesystem.
>
>
Going back over zephyr logs, I find what Kris was doing. He said:
In essence, it seems to be possible that as AFS is flushing data to the
server, and deletes the content of cache blocks, it t
Yes, /cache is an ext3 filesystem.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
the other thing: is the cache ext3? i recall something weird that Kris Van
Hees investigated where we got an error passed through from the journalling
code.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Harald Barth wrote:
# The problem's console info via syslog
Jan 31 10:32:07 jester last message repeated 3 times
Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel: *** Cache partition is FULL - Decrease
cachesize!!! ***
Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel:
# YOU LIE!
bash-3.2$ df -kl /cache
Files
36000 free inodes
Harald Barth wrote:
# The problem's console info via syslog
Jan 31 10:32:07 jester last message repeated 3 times
Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel: *** Cache partition is FULL - Decrease
cachesize!!! ***
Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel:
# YOU LIE!
bash-3.2$ df -kl /cache
Filesyst
easy to test: try creating a file there.
On Jan 31, 2008 11:34 AM, Harald Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > # The problem's console info via syslog
> >
> > Jan 31 10:32:07 jester last message repeated 3 times
> > Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel: *** Cache partition is FULL - Decrease
> cachesiz
> # The problem's console info via syslog
>
> Jan 31 10:32:07 jester last message repeated 3 times
> Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel: *** Cache partition is FULL - Decrease
> cachesize!!! ***
> Jan 31 10:32:07 jester kernel:
>
> # YOU LIE!
>
> bash-3.2$ df -kl /cache
> Filesystem 1K-blo
22 matches
Mail list logo
