On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 1:49 PM Jeffrey E Altman wrote:
> The question for cell admins is whether anyone is aware of any internal
> scripts which process the output of "pts membership" which will break as
> a result of the inclusion of the implicit groups "system:anyuser" and
> "system:authuser"
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Jeffrey Altman
jalt...@your-file-system.com wrote:
Tomorrow(*)
Thanks for the update/reminder. And thanks for your
willingness to build one last time for Windows 10.
It really is above and beyond what anyone has any
right to expect.
Personally, I have no idea
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net wrote:
For all of these situations where the Foundation would provide the
ability to sign binaries, there are those legal considerations, then,
but also other things. The Foundation needs to have a point of contact
for
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Joyce step...@email.unc.edu wrote:
Jeffrey,
I'd like to learn more about this. However since you sell a proprietary fork
of OpenAFS, it's difficult to discount your possible incentive to spread FUD
regarding OpenAFS.
Therefore can you provide URIs
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking about it though, since RPM goes off of what's in the RPM
database and not what's on the filesystem, I wouldn't think that this
would be working for *any* Fedora 17+ system, regardless of how it's
installed -
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Jeffrey Altman
jalt...@your-file-system.com wrote:
...
Its an accounting system.
You mean OpenAFS is not being rewritten in Cobol in honor
of Admiral Hopper :-)
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Coy Hile coy.h...@coyhile.com wrote:
Somewhat off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks that
Linux distributions doing this is utterly brain-dead?
I suppose the only good news is that in IPv6 only ::1/128
is loopback. So such interesting choices will
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net wrote:
'discard' I've heard may help or hurt performance depending on usage
And on the particular SSD vendor (really the firmware), when it
receives the (SATA) TRIM, or the (SAS) UNMAP command.
Some of the firmware
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Steve Simmons s...@umich.edu wrote:
Without meaning to insult the average system administrator
Well, since all system administrators are above average,
you can not have insulted anyone (yet) :-).
I agree with both what you and Russ are saying.
It all
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery r...@stanford.edu wrote:
...
We have AFS clients on all of our servers, including the AFS servers, and
avoid unintentional dependencies on AFS (for all services) by just being
careful.
While I trust you to be careful (and I would trust myself to be
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Brandon Allbery
ballb...@sinenomine.net wrote:
Subset of, yes. All? So many sites on the Internet can't be accessed
reliably from the many OSes that do PMTUD? Somehow, I doubt.
If you want to be sure, use the RFC mandated minimum MTU
of 576 for IPv4 (1280
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jeffrey Altman jalt...@openafs.org wrote:
OpenAFS 1.7.18 is the next a series of OpenAFS clients for the Microsoft
Windows platform that is implemented as a native file system.
I am not asking for it, just curious if OpenAFS will (eventually)
make it to the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org wrote:
What are the missing pieces needed to deploy RxK5?
I am going to start with the assumption that it will not
pass the standards process until after there are several
people running it in production.
Please read
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)
c...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
we are running lustre alongside afs right now. lustre is generally
much much faster than afs. the downside is that the security model
is essentially nfsv3. anyone with root on a lustre client is
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Ted Creedon tcree...@easystreet.net wrote:
The IP (intellectual property) in YFS seems to be derived from AFS's IP.
If that case can be made, IBM or any other entity could force YFS back into
the open source domain.
I am confident that YFSi would have dotted
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Blaine jbla...@kickflop.net wrote:
Due to drastic differences in OS libraries present, those (like us),
who use @sys in PATH, get bitten. That is, our build of AppX for
'amd64_linux26' that was built on RHEL 5 will not work on RHEL 6,
and we need to
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 06:43, Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote:
I was curious if anyone's tried OpenAFS on Apple's 10.8 developer
preview yet? How did it go?
If they told you, they would have to kill you :-)
More seriously, Apple is very protective of their
assets, (and some might call
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 09:45, Natxo Asenjo natxo.ase...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently no i386 more in rhel6 and clones.
Somewhere along the line Fedora (and now RHEL)
dropped i386. You have to target i686.
Gary
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 02:58, Harald Barth h...@kth.se wrote:
...
IMHO it should be disabled completely if there are no RFC1918
interfaces on the client and enabled if there are such interfaces.
A command line flag to override in either direction would help
as well (for debugging, testing and
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 06:58, Coy Hile coy.h...@coyhile.com wrote:
...
Does RHEL 6 have the same key too new issue as well?
Yes.
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 14:42, Anders Magnusson ra...@ltu.se wrote:
...
No, state-of-the-art HP workstation. Note that this is more-or-less the
behaviour
of all our Win7 machines with the IFS client, all of them are really new
hardware.
This is a WAG, but high end workstations sometimes have
My proposal, going forwards, is to not produce security advisories or
releases for these local denial of service attacks. Local issues that can
result in privilege escalation, or denial of service attacks that can be
performed by those outside a sites infrastructure would still result in
Not sure why anyone would want to use anything other than Teradactyl.
As with all else, it depends on your requirements.
Teradactyl is clearly a solution targeting the enterprise
space with enterprise capability, support, overheads,
and pricing. TSM and NetBackup target the same
space
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 15:24, Simon Wilkinson s...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 20:24, Gary Gatling wrote:
I am in charge of several afs servers in our college. Right now there are
5 afs servers running on 5 SPARC based servers. We are ditching Solaris
since it sucks so bad and
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:47, Derrick Brashear sha...@gmail.com wrote:
c) Just state that 1.4.5 is too old to bother
possibly that being today.
While I tend to be of the opinion that at some point you
just have to throw away the bath water (regardless of
the baby squid that has been living
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:52, Christopher D. Clausen cclau...@acm.org wrote:
Are we attempting to solve a problem that no one actually has?
I am sure someone has encountered it. Someone has encountered
every problem. Whether someone reports it is another issue.
I am a proponent of delivering
XP does have the same problem that 2000 does in that it is no longer
supported by Microsoft without an extremely expensive support contract.
Given the fact that so many sites still have XP and Server 2003 systems
in production, I can't imagine deprecating support for XP for at least
another
Windows 2000 is now more than ten years old. If your organization would be
significantly impacted by removing support for Windows 2000, please let us
know. My personal opinion is that it is time to declare Windows 2000
unsupported.
I would have to look at the official dates, but my
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 20:51, Booker Bense bbe...@slac.stanford.edu wrote:
[1]- But I can get a 2 TB disk at fry's for $150...
Then one overpaid. The current Fry's flyer shows 2TB for $99 :-)
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 20:09, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
...
btw: according to the leaked memo Oracle will provide source code for
Solaris, including ZFS, everytime they produce a new Solaris release. This
would mean that it will still be open source, but development wouldn't
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 22:56, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On 30/09/2010 22:42, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 20:09, Robert Milkowskimi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
...
btw: according to the leaked memo Oracle will provide source code for
Solaris, including ZFS
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 00:04, Vincent Fox vb...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
On 09/28/2010 04:13 PM, Rich Sudlow wrote:
that being said we're also looking for fileserver
alternatives due to Oracle takeover.
What's your reasoning here?
If anything I'd expect them to put effort into optimizing it
ted creedon wrote:
Have openafs users been affected by
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2006/m06-16.pdf ?
Anyone who is a Fed (or a Fed contractor) has had to deal
with that memo, and address the issues (quite some time
ago, actually). Primarily, the point is to insure there is
not
33 matches
Mail list logo
