> fine. but that doesnt mean it needs to be supported beyond that release.
> if you want to continue to run irix 6.5 you will be stuck on an older
> release of openafs (that will be bug fixes perhaps but not new features).
That would probably fine if older clients could still function just fine
w
In message <4b2a4ef1.1060...@inbox.com>,Chaz Chandler writes:
>I think you could argue that from a business perspective, but let's not
>pull the rug out from under it prematurely. It's working great now.
>Derrick and others just completed a good bit of work in 1.5 to allow it
fine. but that does
> i think IRIX is dead enough this isnt going to be an issue. dead
> enough that i cant see keeping support for IRIX much longer.
I think you could argue that from a business perspective, but let's not
pull the rug out from under it prematurely. It's working great now.
Derrick and others just c
In message <4b29ca19.7070...@inbox.com>,Chaz Chandler writes:
>Speaking of which, might now be the time to suggest that 1.6 default to
>namei on IRIX? Especially since inode is very broken (at least in 1.4,
>haven't tested 1.5 yet) on IRIX and the change is more or less
i think IRIX is dead enoug
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Chaz Chandler wrote:
>>> Making it the default behavior might be OK, provided we add code to
>>> make the fileserver recognize a vice partition containing existing
>>> inode volumes and refuse to start.
>
> Speaking of which, might now be the time to suggest that 1
>> Making it the default behavior might be OK, provided we add code to
>> make the fileserver recognize a vice partition containing existing
>> inode volumes and refuse to start.
Speaking of which, might now be the time to suggest that 1.6 default to
namei on IRIX? Especially since inode is very
I just wanted to give some actual dates re: Solaris 8/9 support from Sun.
When Sun declares an End of Service Life for an OS version, it then enters
two phases of support past its last ship date. The first phase still gives
full support to their customers and patches are still released. This l
Quoting "Jeffrey Hutzelman" :
You must think that people who run production services have nothing
to do all day but buy new hardware and put new operating systems on
it and migrate their services.
Oh I =know= this isn't the case. I get those headaches all the time.
Also, please bear in min
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
On 12/16/2009 2:37 PM, omall...@msu.edu wrote:
Quoting "Derrick Brashear" :
Are we / how long are we keeping the inode fileserver backend around?
for sites with solaris 8, might as well let them upgrade to 1.6.
anyone else, well, i hope they aren't still
--On Wednesday, December 16, 2009 02:37:32 PM -0500 omall...@msu.edu wrote:
Solaris 8/9 hit the darn near unsupported list from Sun.
By the time 1.6 reaches production there won't be anyone running it at
least on production hardware.
HA HA HA you are so funny
You must think that people who ru
Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:
Solaris 8/9 hit the darn near unsupported list from Sun.
By the time 1.6 reaches production there won't be anyone running it at
least on production hardware.
Not entirely true. Sun offers extended support contracts for
those that *must* run Solaris 8, and Solaris 10 con
Quoting "Jeffrey Altman" :
On 12/16/2009 2:37 PM, omall...@msu.edu wrote:
Quoting "Derrick Brashear" :
Are we / how long are we keeping the inode fileserver backend around?
for sites with solaris 8, might as well let them upgrade to 1.6.
anyone else, well, i hope they aren't still using it
> Solaris 8/9 hit the darn near unsupported list from Sun.
> By the time 1.6 reaches production there won't be anyone running it at
> least on production hardware.
Not entirely true. Sun offers extended support contracts for
those that *must* run Solaris 8, and Solaris 10 containers
is available
On 12/16/2009 2:37 PM, omall...@msu.edu wrote:
> Quoting "Derrick Brashear" :
>
>>>
>>> Are we / how long are we keeping the inode fileserver backend around?
>>
>> for sites with solaris 8, might as well let them upgrade to 1.6.
>> anyone else, well, i hope they aren't still using it.
>
> Solaris
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM, wrote:
> Quoting "Derrick Brashear" :
>
>>>
>>> Are we / how long are we keeping the inode fileserver backend around?
>>
>> for sites with solaris 8, might as well let them upgrade to 1.6.
>> anyone else, well, i hope they aren't still using it.
>
> Solaris 8/9 hi
Quoting "Derrick Brashear" :
Are we / how long are we keeping the inode fileserver backend around?
for sites with solaris 8, might as well let them upgrade to 1.6.
anyone else, well, i hope they aren't still using it.
Solaris 8/9 hit the darn near unsupported list from Sun.
By the time 1.6
16 matches
Mail list logo
