Sounds like a fine solution. Maybe could be integrated with the hints
that Julian wants to add (I know that complicates things a bit, but it
*is* a hint after all...)?
Rob
Murali Vilayannur wrote:
Hi Rob,
hehe :)
Alright, I will change it then..
Just had a quick chat with Sam and RobL about this..
Are you ok with having a flag to the isys_fs_add and fs_add API that
determines whether or not we should do these checks and have ping set the
flag to 1 and client-core set to 0?
thanks,
Murali
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Rob Ross wrote:
80K clients...
Murali Vilayannur wrote:
Hi Rob,
Quick uneducated question: this isn't automatically done on *every*
mount, right?
yeah, it is done automatically on every *new* mount upcall. Is this a
problem? (I changed the code to this behavior y'day night)
thanks,
Murali
Rob
Phil Carns wrote:
Murali Vilayannur wrote:
Hi All,
Just a heads-up..
I have checked in a patch that will allow the pvfs2-ping utility to
verify
if the fs.conf files obtained from all the servers for a given fsid
is the same by checking against their crypto check sum (SHA1 right now)
Please let me know if you have any serious objections to doing it the way
I have done right now..
Thanks,
Murali
Hi Murali,
This is integrated into fs_add so that the test is performed
automatically at mount time now, correct? We had done something similar
in the pvfs2-validate utility, but I think it will be good to have it
integrated into the normal mount process.
I haven't looked at the code, but I have a few functionality comments
after playing with it this morning:
- Is it possible to filter whitespace and comments out of the config
file before gathering whatever information you need for comparison, or
do you want to enforce that the fs.conf files be verbatim identical?
- I ran one test where a server had an extra line in its configuration
file, and that showed up fine as a mount error with information in the
log files showing the size difference. However, I ran another test
where I just changed the value of UnexpectedRequests from "50" to "51",
and this did not generate any error. Is there anything in particular
you have to do to enable the checksum tests in addition to the size tests?
-Phil
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
