Hi Chris,
The reason seems that one needs a modprobe config like this (Tigran told
me the trick today):
alias nfs-layouttype4-1 nfs_layout_nfsv41_files
alias nfs-layouttype4-2 nfs_layout_osd2_objects
alias nfs-layouttype4-3 off
With dCache it already works with the first line, any 2 and 3
Hi Stefan.
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 19:13 +0200, Stefan Kluth wrote:
you should perhaps file a bug report againt nfs-common then? Presumably
these lines don't harm when NFS4.1 is not active?
I have already,... but due to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=638045 my locally
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 08:07:54PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Hi Paul.
Nice to meet you here, it's a small world ;)
Good to see this enabled in Debian by default, however, this alone seems
to be not enough.
Whenever I tried this with dCache, I could mount a remoute pnfs,
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 20:17 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
The reason seems that one needs a modprobe config like this (Tigran told
me the trick today):
alias nfs-layouttype4-1 nfs_layout_nfsv41_files
alias nfs-layouttype4-2 nfs_layout_osd2_objects
alias nfs-layouttype4-3 off
[...]
Hi Paul.
Nice to meet you here, it's a small world ;)
Good to see this enabled in Debian by default, however, this alone seems
to be not enough.
Whenever I tried this with dCache, I could mount a remoute pnfs, listing
worked, but when reading/writing I got IO errors.
The reason seems that
Hi Ben,
On Thursday 21 July 2011 01:01:19 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
How about we start by enabling NFSv4.1 starting with release candidates
for Linux 3.1, and see what feedback we get for that?
That sounds OK, I guess, but it does introduce a significant delay.
BTW, will the release
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:13 +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Thursday 21 July 2011 01:01:19 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
How about we start by enabling NFSv4.1 starting with release candidates
for Linux 3.1, and see what feedback we get for that?
That sounds OK, I guess, but it does
Hi Ben,
On Thursday 21 July 2011 12:51:11 Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:13 +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
[..] but it does introduce a significant delay.
Linux 3.1-rc1 should be out in 3 weeks or less.
Ah! OK, that's not too bad. I thought it would be longer.
BTW, will the
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 17:09 +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the update.
On Friday 15 July 2011 16:32:41 Ben Hutchings wrote:
No news. The question remains, what the cost may be to other NFS users.
Certainly NFS v4.1 is not a minor change, and it adds a lot of new code
to
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the update.
On Friday 15 July 2011 16:32:41 Ben Hutchings wrote:
No news. The question remains, what the cost may be to other NFS users.
Certainly NFS v4.1 is not a minor change, and it adds a lot of new code
to the nfs module.
I guess the question is how do we go forward
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 15:27 +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Monday 23 May 2011 18:48:56 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[wishlist: NFS-4.1 / pNFS support]
Anyway, I have no objection to enabling this unless it is likely to
cause regressions for other NFS users.
Is there any news on enabling
Hi Ben,
On Monday 23 May 2011 18:48:56 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[wishlist: NFS-4.1 / pNFS support]
Anyway, I have no objection to enabling this unless it is likely to
cause regressions for other NFS users.
Is there any news on enabling NFS v4.1?
Can I do anything to help?
Cheers,
Paul.
--
Hi Ben,
On Monday 23 May 2011 18:48:56 Ben Hutchings wrote:
I believe this is a major effect on the usability of a package, without
rendering it completely unusable to everyone.
[...]
Well, not really. I agree this is an important feature, but generally
feature requests are still
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.39-1
Severity: important
Recent kernels include support for NFS v4.1. More recently still, the kernel
has included support for NFS v4.1's parallel NFS or pNFS. These options
(CONFIG_NFS_V4_1 and CONFIG_PNFS_FILE_LAYOUT) may be built as modules, so are
loaded on
severity 627655 wishlist
thanks
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Severity: important
Please specify, why this is appropriate.
Current Debain Linux kernels are build with neither option enabled (the PNFS
one is even missing from the config file).
Noone requested
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 627655 wishlist
Bug #627655 [linux-2.6] linux-image-2.6.39-1-686-pae: missing NFS4.1 / pNFS
support
Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'important'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
627655:
Hi Bastian,
On Monday 23 May 2011 12:17:00 Bastian Blank wrote:
severity 627655 wishlist
thanks
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Severity: important
Please specify, why this is appropriate.
Sure.
Some scientific communities require access to huge amounts of
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 15:03 +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Hi Bastian,
On Monday 23 May 2011 12:17:00 Bastian Blank wrote:
severity 627655 wishlist
thanks
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Paul Millar wrote:
Severity: important
Please specify, why this is appropriate.
18 matches
Mail list logo
