Kostik Belousov writes:
Approved by:pjd (mentor)
Revision ChangesPath
1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c
1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c
The above files are what I have.
Yes from a 6.1 stable around 6-25-06
What this means ? That you
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:38:54PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Kostik Belousov writes:
Approved by:pjd (mentor)
Revision ChangesPath
1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c
1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c
The above files are what I
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:38:54PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
I am really wondering if 6.1 is ready for production under heavy load. And
for sure the NFS client in the whole 6.X line seems problematic (see my
post in the stable list under subject: NFS clients freeze and can not
Mark Linimon writes:
It's not easily possible for a FreeBSD developer to put these kinds of
stresses on a machine, so we rely on our users to help us with these
problems.
And this is why I have been trying to someone to PAY him/her to help us.
I have been trying to find if anyone that works
Kostik Belousov writes:
This seems to be a different issue. BTW, I have already heard complaints
about deadlocks caused by combination of nfsd and snapshots.
I think you can add: nfsd + background fsck too.
Probably, I will look into this, but cannot give you estimations when.
Thank!!
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Kostik Belousov writes:
Approved by:pjd (mentor)
Revision ChangesPath
1.156.2.3 +16 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c
1.136.2.3 +4 -0 src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c
The above files are what I have.
Yes from a 6.1
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:57:13PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
And this is why I have been trying to someone to PAY him/her to help us.
OK, sorry, I had not picked this up from the thread, which I had mostly
just been scanning. My apologies.
Should I contact the FreeBSD foundation for this?
Albert Shih writes:
I've nfs server running 6-Stable (5 April 2006) with some trouble but ...
well approx stable.
But today he crash again (after ~1.5 mounth).
Now I'm like have some advise :
1/ I can upgrade to 6.1-Release, but I've see many problem with
nfsd heavy load.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:09:14AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
So far 6.X has been for the most part stable as NFS sever for us.. but one
of our servers has been hanging crashing and NFSD was showing as status
GIANT... and locking.. It had 6.0 stable and upgrading it to 6.1 stable
(6-26)
Rink Springer writes:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 04:09:14AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
So far 6.X has been for the most part stable as NFS sever for us.. but one
of our servers has been hanging crashing and NFSD was showing as status
GIANT
You'll want to upgrade to the latest 6-STABLE,
Was it fixed after Jun 25?
This comment fixed it for me:
---
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:50:29 + (UTC)
From: Konstantin Belousov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: cvs commit: src/sys/nfsserver nfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c
kib
Rink Springer writes:
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:(Branch: RELENG_6)
sys/nfsservernfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c
Log:
MFC of the temporary fix for nfsd leaking GIANT.
src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_serv.c rev. 1.165
src/sys/nfsserver/nfs_srvsubs.c rev. 1.141
Both
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:23:15AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Rink Springer writes:
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:(Branch: RELENG_6)
sys/nfsservernfs_serv.c nfs_srvsubs.c
Log:
MFC of the temporary fix for nfsd leaking GIANT.
Massimo Lusetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS-
related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release. Therefore
I recommend that you update to RELENG_6_1.
Did you mean RELENG_6, right?
No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch
for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not
to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. 6-stable) on a production machine,
therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1.
If read right he is
Massimo Lusetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch
for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not
to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. 6-stable) on a production machine,
therefore my recommendation is RELENG_6_1.
If
Le 09/06/2006 à 09:26:20+0200, Massimo Lusetti a écrit
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 09:09 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
No, I meant RELENG_6_1, which is the security fix branch
for 6.1-Release. Albert wrote that he would prefer not
to use RELENG_6 (a.k.a. 6-stable) on a production machine,
Albert Shih [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've nfs server running 6-Stable (5 April 2006) with some trouble but ...
well approx stable.
But today he crash again (after ~1.5 mounth).
There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS-
related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release.
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:46 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
There have been quite a lot of bug fixes (including NFS-
related, IIRC) in the weeks before the release. Therefore
I recommend that you update to RELENG_6_1.
Did you mean RELENG_6, right?
--
Massimo.run();
Hi all.
I'm come back to ask you some question about what release I can use.
I've nfs server running 6-Stable (5 April 2006) with some trouble but ...
well approx stable.
But today he crash again (after ~1.5 mounth).
Now I'm like have some advise :
1/ I can upgrade to 6.1-Release,
20 matches
Mail list logo
