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
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 built
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
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
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 mailing
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
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, they're
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
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
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 close enough
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
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 free
# 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-blocks
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
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 tries
16 matches
Mail list logo
