Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > XFS is a lot better than ReiserFS, though, in terms of support and > knowledge by the kernel developers, and would probably be fine. It is > faster for a lot of usage profiles than ext3.
I have had some problems with XFS on a Debian-based AFS fileserver. XFS decided to off-line a volume due to a long timeout in the underlying RAID volume. I would not recomend it without heavy testing. >> Ok, I have by default "ulimit -c 0". I don't depend on core files >> for so many years I forget about ulimit -c 0. Now I am a sysadm not >> a programmer. I only program in bash and install gdb for other >> people to use, not for myself :-) > > Right. :) I got caught recently the same way, actually. I'll note that someone mentioned a problem with the 8192 stack size in Debian a few months ago in the #openafs IRC channel. They worked around the problem with via changing some setting before starting the AFS processes. Unfortunately I do not remember the exact solution or the exact problem, but you are not the only one experiencing it. <<CDC _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
