Derrick, sorry for the confusion with the e-mail. I have no clue why this happenned... The body of the text got truncated, too... Anyway, to answer your question, ufs logging was never enabled on the OpenAFS server. The sysadmin compiled the afs fileserver without enabling namei and started the machine w/out enabling ufs logging. So, I guess this eliminates the suspicion you had (using an inode afs fileserver while enabling ufs logging). Moreover, we did see the same problem on the AIX server that runs IBM AFS 3.6. I am starting to have another suspicion. The problematic afs area has many symlinks. The user is running a "make install" which gets stuck while executing a command like "mv /afs/rhic/.../lynx /afs/rhic/.../lynx.old". Running an "ls" shows neither "lynx" nor "lynx.old". Then, if I run the salvager, we end up with a zero-sized lynx.old. The SalvageLog messages show lots of "Vnode "N": version < inode version; fixed (old status)". I don't know what else that "make install" is doing, like, maybe, deleting files that are pointed to by symlinks and then trying to do something with them. I will get in touch with the user and find out what else that "make install" is doing. Meanwhile, if you have any suggestion of what might go wrong in this symlink-rich afs area and cause the volume corruption, I would love to hear it. Thanks a lot.
Edward -----Original Message----- From: Derrick J Brashear To: Nicolescu, Edward L Sent: 11/26/2004 3:03 PM Subject: RE: [OpenAFS] corruption problems you did it again. reply only to the list, not to me, and not to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which no mail came from, despite what it says below. "Sender" is not "From", something, your mua or mta, is rewriting the messages incorrectly. they aren't leaving the list server corrupted like that. On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Nicolescu, Edward L wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' > Sent: 11/26/2004 2:31 PM > Subject: RE: [OpenAFS] corruption problems > > Your reply went to [EMAIL PROTECTED], i have no idea why. > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Nicolescu, Edward L wrote: > >> >> >>> Vnode "N": version < inode version; fixed (old status) >>> >>> There are 518 vnodes exhibiting the version mismatch problem in one >>> volume and 519 in the other one. >> >> And where is this volume now? 1.2.11/Solaris 9? >> >> Right... > > inode or namei? perchance are you using inode on a filesysterm which has > logging enabled? and you proceed to tell me it's inode, but not whether you're using logging ufs. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
