Thanks Dean.
Committed fix to CVS.
-sam
On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Dean Hildebrand wrote:
Hi guys,
I found a small bug in PINT_tcache_set_info at
case TCACHE_ENABLE_EXPIRATION:
tcache->expiration_enabled = arg;
break;
I think it should be:
case TCACHE_ENABLE_EXPIRA
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 04:53:03PM -0500, Rob Ross wrote:
> We should fix that misleading server message. -- Rob
done.
==rob
--
Rob Latham
Mathematics and Computer Science DivisionA215 0178 EA2D B059 8CDF
Argonne National Labs, IL USAB29D F333 664A 4280 315B
We should fix that misleading server message. -- Rob
Robert Latham wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 10:44:40AM -0500, Jeff Pummill wrote:
Rob,
It's kinda weird how the -r is behaving...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sbin]# ./pvfs2-server /etc/pvfs2-fs.conf
/etc/pvfs2-server.conf-pvfs2-meta-server-0-0 -r
Thanks Brian for reporting this. We should be able to hide this at
pvfs2-client.
Rob
Brian D. Haymore wrote:
We have seen an odd quirk twice now. We are using pvfs2-1.4.0 on RedHat
EL 4 AS x86_64 kernel version 2.6.9-34.ELsmp. What we have seen is that
we had one of our 12 IO servers lock u
Hi Dean,
Thanks for the catch!
It is definitely a typo! fixed it in CVS.
thanks,
Murali
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Dean Hildebrand wrote:
> I also just noticed that in service_fs_umount_request
> , on the success return
> path, the type of op is set to mount instead of umount,
> vfs_request->out_downca
I also just noticed that in service_fs_umount_request
, on the success return
path, the type of op is set to mount instead of umount,
vfs_request->out_downcall.type = PVFS2_VFS_OP_FS_MOUNT
;
I haven't seen a problem, but this seems a little odd.
--
Dean Hildebrand
Ph.D. Candidate
University o
We have seen an odd quirk twice now. We are using pvfs2-1.4.0 on RedHat
EL 4 AS x86_64 kernel version 2.6.9-34.ELsmp. What we have seen is that
we had one of our 12 IO servers lock up one day due to a hardware issue.
After correcting the issue and restoring the node to live use many of
the c
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:13:29PM -0400, Dean Hildebrand wrote:
> Whether to patch the .sm or .c files has been a little confusing all
> along. When I started, I was working with the releases as I thought
> that would be the best way to distribute patches. I could tell people
> "use this patc
Hi guys,
I found a small bug in PINT_tcache_set_info at
case TCACHE_ENABLE_EXPIRATION:
tcache->expiration_enabled = arg;
break;
I think it should be:
case TCACHE_ENABLE_EXPIRATION:
tcache->expiration_enabled = arg;
ret = 0;
break;
--
Dean
Thanks for the info guys.
Whether to patch the .sm or .c files has been a little confusing all
along. When I started, I was working with the releases as I thought
that would be the best way to distribute patches. I could tell people
"use this patch against release xxx". At the time I didn't
Hello All,
I don't know if this is really relevant or important..
Lately, I have had to deal with a wide-area network test bed for PVFS2
where firewall settings on either of the remote systems allowed only ssh
connections/packets..
So I investigated what it would take to tunnel PVFS2 through
a set
11 matches
Mail list logo