Remember this? Never mind. Oh, the head of the main branch works great!
Walt
Walt Ligon wrote:
Well fuck me but my modified version passed the ping/ls/cp/ls/cp/diff
test! Now I've got to find something more rigorous.
Walt
___
Pvfs2-developers
Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:59 +0200:
I'm not sure that we really want to literally run client state machines
on the server. Most of them probably are probably not going to map
correctly to that environment (they store results in different places,
have
Well fuck me but my modified version passed the ping/ls/cp/ls/cp/diff
test! Now I've got to find something more rigorous.
Walt
___
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
Pvfs2-developers@beowulf-underground.org
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/lis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:59 +0200:
> I'm not sure that we really want to literally run client state machines
> on the server. Most of them probably are probably not going to map
> correctly to that environment (they store results in different places,
> have different assum
Hi Walt,
I'm not sure that we really want to literally run client state machines
on the server. Most of them probably are probably not going to map
correctly to that environment (they store results in different places,
have different assumptions about who to contact, look for config values
i
OK, thanks (and thanks Brad). that's kind of what I thought. For the
moment it really isn't an issue of being "in" the server, as being used
by client state machines versus server state machines. I presume when
you used it in the server, the server was acting as a client and running
a client
I used it in the server for my thesis also.
Phil Carns wrote:
The server is definitely not using the msgpairarray code right now. I
think it would be handy to keep it in the common area, though, because
it could be used for server to server communication in the future.
It actually started ou
Seems reasonable. BTW, we've talked about this already, but since the
msgpairarray state machine is the current topic, I'll reiterate some of
my ideas. Its written in such a way that at present can't be used by
sys-io.sm. The problem is that it blocks (doesn't complete) waiting
for a r
The server is definitely not using the msgpairarray code right now. I
think it would be handy to keep it in the common area, though, because
it could be used for server to server communication in the future.
It actually started out just being a client side thing, but I moved it
to common whil
On Jul 16, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Walt Ligon wrote:
Hey guy, I'm trying to understand why the msgpairarray stuff is in the
common directory and has this stuff to let it work with both the
client and the server (and in fact gets compiled with both the
client and the server) when it doesn't appea
Hey guy, I'm trying to understand why the msgpairarray stuff is in the
common directory and has this stuff to let it work with both the client
and the server (and in fact gets compiled with both the client and the
server) when it doesn't appear to get used by the server at all. Is it
getting
On Jul 14, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Sam Lang wrote:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
As discussed earlier, when setting the TCP socket buffer sizes in
the config file, the client already has one connection open to a
server to get the config file. It's too late to change the buffer
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
As discussed earlier, when setting the TCP socket buffer sizes in
the config file, the client already has one connection open to a
server to get the config file. It's too late to change the buffer
size for this one connection. So we need to clo
On Jul 13, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:01 -0500:
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
The
bigger problem that sockbuf sizes should not be global settings, but
rather per-mountpoint, is also not dealt with here.
Hmm..but yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:01 -0500:
> On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
>> The
>> bigger problem that sockbuf sizes should not be global settings, but
>> rather per-mountpoint, is also not dealt with here.
>
> Hmm..but you are only closing the connection to the
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
As discussed earlier, when setting the TCP socket buffer sizes in
the config file, the client already has one connection open to a
server to get the config file. It's too late to change the buffer
size for this one connection. So we need to c
16 matches
Mail list logo