Hi, I see the same thing on our servers...on the servers where vfsck is behaving correctly, we have kernel patch 112233-12 with 113073-05 installed. Our one server which is exhibiting the vfsck errors has kernel 117171-05 with 113073-13.
-Renata >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Solaris 9 issues - making some progress >To: "Douglas E. Engert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-AvMilter-Key: 1092412518:5fb5502cd5e105580a191bf4395ee76f >X-Avmilter: Clean >X-Processed-By: MilterMonkey Version 0.9 -- http://www.membrain.com/miltermonkey >X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 >List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Subscribe: <https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Id: OpenAFS Info/Discussion <openafs-info.openafs.org> >List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >List-Archive: <https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/> >Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:50:16 -0400 >X-PMX-Version: 4.6.1.107272, Antispam-Core: 4.6.1.106808, Antispam-Data: 2004.8.12.110303 > >On Aug 13, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote: >> Do you have a diff of the old and new header files? >> I have patch 112233-12 on my Solaris 9 workstation, but the AFS servers >> are running with 112233-11 The files are identical. > >You know, this got me thinking, and did some digging around. > >I just went through all of the Solaris 9 UFS and kernel patches, and >discovered two patches, 113457 and 113073, which are the only patches >which change /usr/include/sys/fs/ufs_fs.h. > >113457 seems to have been withdrawn and superseded by 113073, which is >a member of the Solaris 9 recommended patch cluster. This 113073 patch >is a comprehensive UFS and LVM patch. > >See, here our Solaris 9 boxes have S9 4/04 installed on them. The >Solaris 9 box exhibiting the problems had the recommended cluster >applied, which included 113073-13. We have another Solaris 9 box which >is running AFS fine which has 113073-05 installed. > >So it seems that somewhere after at least rev 05 of patch 113073 is >when sun "broke" UFS as far as what AFS expects, and the kernel patches >have no part in this. > >Reading through the release history for the 113073 patch, nothing >immediately sticks out as the cause of why 1) fs_interleave was removed >from ufs_fs.h, and 2) why vfsck now has issues with block 0 of a UFS >file system. > >Can you check your S9 system for me and tell me what rev of 113073 you >have installed, if it is installed? > >/dale > >_______________________________________________ >OpenAFS-info mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info Renata Dart | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanford Linear Accelerator Center | 2575 Sand Hill Road, MS 97 | (650) 926-2848 (office) Stanford, California 94025 | (650) 926-3329 (fax) _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
