Rainer Toebbicke <[email protected]> wrote:
Derrick Brashear schrieb:
Considering it a showstopper when you admit one graph earlier that
you're already running with a patched tree seems a bit overblown,
perhaps? The tree is now gold and patches may no longer be applied?
No, of course not.
It would be painful to have to put back the '--enable-fast-restart and
--enable-bitmap-later' code if you removed them, probably dangerous. My
plea is to keep them in as an alternative to the demand-attach
file-server: with mandatory salvaging the non-demand-attach case is
seriously impaired, hence disabling it is no real alternative.
With the ambitious schedule for new releases I see this happening very
quickly. I'd like to avoid having to stop at a particular release next
year because of a functionality that we manage to live without, and miss
others that we're interested in.
I agree with Rainer on this.
-----
At the same time, I'd be happy to start doing more testing of the various
DAFS features, although I'm not quite sure what version I should be using
for testing, nor am I completely sure how to actually migrate an existing
file server to use DAFS or if there is a reverse path to downgrade if I
encounter problems.
<<CDC
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
