On 9/19/2011 9:36 AM, Andrew Deason wrote: > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:20:05 +0200 > Dirk Heinrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The only thing I did was to "vos release" _another_ volume that was >> mounted below .../sw and which showed up as "not released" in the >> output of "vos listvldb". Does this also count as "being on a >> read/write path"? > > Yes. You can usually pretty quickly see which volume is causing the > "read-write path"-ness by running 'fs exa' or 'fs lq' on each parent > directory starting with /afs/ and working your way down.
If I understand Dirk's situation, path that should have been rw was /afs/cell/sw/foo with volumes root.afs root.afs.readonly root.cell root.cell.readonly sw sw.readonly foo foo.readonly (not properly released) In which case if normal mount points were used everywhere in the path, then /afs should be readonly, /afs/cell should be readonly, and /afs/cell/sw should be readonly but /afs/cell/sw/foo should end up read/write because foo.readonly was in an error state. The state of foo.readonly should not impact the evaluation of /afs/cell/sw. There clearly is something weird going on here.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
