On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Thomas Rast wrote:
Eric Chamberland <eric.chamberl...@giref.ulaval.ca> writes:

So, hum, do we have some sort of conclusion?

Shall it be a fix for git to get around that lustre "behavior"?

If something can be done in git it would be great: it is a *lot*
easier to change git than the lustre filesystem software for a cluster
in running in production mode... (words from cluster team) :-/

I thought you already established that simply disabling the progress
display is a sufficient workaround?  If that doesn't help, you can try
patching out all use of SIGALRM within git.

I tried that solution after Brian told me to try it, but it didn't solved the problem for me! :-(

Other than that I agree with Junio, from what we've seen so far, Lustre
returns EINTR on all sorts of calls that simply aren't allowed to do so.

Ok, so now the "good" move would be to have all this reported to lustre development team? Brian, have you seen anything new from what you have already reported? I have to admit that I am not a fs expert...

And I also agree with Junio point of view: The problem may impact mission critical applications....


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to