On Tuesday 22 July 2014 07:04:54 Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > One possible solution is to convert directories into files managed by
> > storage/posix (some changes will also be required in dht and afr
> > probably). We will have full control about the format of this file,
> > so we'll be able to use the
> One possible solution is to convert directories into files managed by
> storage/posix (some changes will also be required in dht and afr
> probably). We will have full control about the format of this file,
> so we'll be able to use the directory offset that we want to avoid
> interferences with
On Monday 21 July 2014 13:14:46 Jeff Darcy wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of making assumptions about d_off
> values and twiddling them back and forth, vs. maintaining a precise
> mapping between our values and local-FS values.
>
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/4675/
>
> That patc
On 2014-07-21 19:14, Jeff Darcy wrote:
But this offset gap widens as and when more translators (which need
to store subvol-id) get added to the gluster stack which may
eventually result in the similar issue which you are facing now.
>
> Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of makin
> >> But this offset gap widens as and when more translators (which need
> >> to store subvol-id) get added to the gluster stack which may
> >> eventually result in the similar issue which you are facing now.
Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of making assumptions about d_off
values and twiddl
On 07/21/2014 07:33 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-21 14:36, Soumya Koduri wrote:
On 07/21/2014 05:35 PM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
On Monday 21 July 2014 13:53:19 Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-21 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/21/2014 05:17 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote
On 2014-07-21 14:36, Soumya Koduri wrote:
>
>
> On 07/21/2014 05:35 PM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
>> On Monday 21 July 2014 13:53:19 Anders Blomdell wrote:
>>> On 2014-07-21 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/21/2014 05:17 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On 2014-07-21 13:36, Pranith
On 07/21/2014 05:35 PM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
On Monday 21 July 2014 13:53:19 Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-21 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/21/2014 05:17 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-21 13:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/21/2014 05:03 PM, Anders Blomde
On Monday 21 July 2014 13:53:19 Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On 2014-07-21 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> > On 07/21/2014 05:17 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> >> On 2014-07-21 13:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> >>> On 07/21/2014 05:03 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> On 2014-07-19 04:43, P
On 2014-07-21 13:49, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
> On 07/21/2014 05:17 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
>> On 2014-07-21 13:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>> On 07/21/2014 05:03 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-19 04:43, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, An
On 07/21/2014 05:17 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-21 13:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/21/2014 05:03 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-19 04:43, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as
On 2014-07-21 13:36, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
> On 07/21/2014 05:03 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
>> On 2014-07-19 04:43, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>> On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I
encountered
>
On 07/21/2014 05:03 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
On 2014-07-19 04:43, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I encountered
two major weirdnesses:
1. A 'rm -rf ' needed several invocations t
On 2014-07-19 04:43, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
> On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
>> During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I encountered
>> two major weirdnesses:
>>
>>1. A 'rm -rf ' needed several invocations to finish, each time
>> reportin
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:02:33AM -0400, Benjamin Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
> pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
> >
> >> During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I
> >> encou
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
>
>> During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I
>> encountered
>> two major weirdnesses:
>>
>>1. A 'rm -rf ' needed several invocatio
On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I encountered
two major weirdnesses:
1. A 'rm -rf ' needed several invocations to finish, each time
reporting a number of lines like these:
rm: cannot remove ‘a/b/c/d
On 07/18/2014 07:57 PM, Anders Blomdell wrote:
During testing of a 3*4 gluster (from master as of yesterday), I encountered
two major weirdnesses:
1. A 'rm -rf ' needed several invocations to finish, each time
reporting a number of lines like these:
rm: cannot remove ‘a/b/c/d/
18 matches
Mail list logo
