should we bump up MAX_NUM_PATHS while we're at it? -- rob
On Jan 4, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Murali Vilayannur wrote:
yep.. thats right :)
I think it should be safe to change the strrchr to strchr since it
seems to fix both the cases..
thanks,
Murali
On Jan 4, 2008 9:09 AM, Phil Carns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the case where you keep the logic that is currently in head
but just
change strrchr() to strchr(), what breaks in from the previously
reported
bug?
I tried making that change and it looks like both cases work
fine, but I
may be missing something.
Maybe it has something to do with the number of metadata
servers? I am
currently trying this with just one server.
I tried it again to remind myself. No segv, but the ls produces the
wrong answer:
am30$ pvfs2-ls /pvfs/dir1/{0..9} | wc
Ignoring path /pvfs/dir1/8
Ignoring path /pvfs/dir1/9
4009 4001 15179
Should be 5000 files, and not say "Ignoring path".
My setup is CVS head with 1 md+io server, and 1 client, tcp, plus
removing
exactly one 'r' in sys-lookup.sm.
I think this answer is actually right, or at least as right as
pvfs2-ls
will allow :) pvfs2-ls.c is generating that "Ignoring..." message
because it only allows you to list up to MAX_NUM_PATHS (which is
set to
8) paths in a single command line invocation.
-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
_______________________________________________
Pvfs2-developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.beowulf-underground.org/mailman/listinfo/pvfs2-developers
