On 12/1/06, Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Kramer wrote:
> Just another datapoint,
>
> Cyrus seems to work fine with a 2.4 kernel via NFSv3 to a netapp filer
> when mounted with -o nolock. It doesn't use lockd, but it still uses
> local locking. imaptest has no problems (except for
Adam Kramer wrote:
Just another datapoint,
Cyrus seems to work fine with a 2.4 kernel via NFSv3 to a netapp filer
when mounted with -o nolock. It doesn't use lockd, but it still uses
local locking. imaptest has no problems (except for "STORE failed: NO
Too many user flags in mailbox" which is ju
Just another datapoint,
Cyrus seems to work fine with a 2.4 kernel via NFSv3 to a netapp filer
when mounted with -o nolock. It doesn't use lockd, but it still uses
local locking. imaptest has no problems (except for "STORE failed: NO
Too many user flags in mailbox" which is just because cyrus has
At 5:55 PM +0100 11/29/06, Paul Dekkers wrote:
(And NetApp, but we don't have such a filer, yet. Hmm, I actually
wanted to use that with nfs4 for other purposes (too)...)
We have NetApp filers, but not extensive Cyrus experience. :-(
--
Andrew Laurence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cyrus Home Page:
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 09:55, Paul Dekkers wrote:
> I took some time to try the Linux nfs4 client (RHEL4) with a Solaris 10
> nfs4 server (default install) instead of the RHEL4 server. I copied over
> my spool, started cyrus... and this is actually more dramatic.
What kernel version is RHEL
At Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:52:08 +0100,
Michael Menge wrote:
>
> As far as i know NFSv4 has the locking support, but nobody has tested
> it with cyrus till know. All shared filesystems have to deal with the
> problem that they need to cache informations to be fast and to get all
> changes to kee
Hi,
Simon Matter wrote:
I just tried the in-memory NFSv4 server from citi (in newpynfs); it is
very very slow, and I had to lower the number of concurrent users in
imaptest (to prevent 'stalling errors') - but it seems to work better! I
don't get any locking problems in the logs.
So it could b
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:36:55AM +0100, Simon Matter wrote:
> It has been tested but didn't work. See the posts from some days ago. It's
> either a configuration problem with the tests, an NFSv4 implementation
> problem with the tested Linux kernel, or something else.
AFAIK there is a known NFS
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Nikola Milutinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> Now, one question that is a bit off topic, why is NFSv4 locking so
>> bad? Couldn't they (Powers that Be) fix it, so it behaves like a
>> normal (albeit, networked) file system?
>>
>
> As far as i know NFSv4 has the locking support, bu
Hi,
Quoting Nikola Milutinovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Now, one question that is a bit off topic, why is NFSv4 locking so
bad? Couldn't they (Powers that Be) fix it, so it behaves like a
normal (albeit, networked) file system?
As far as i know NFSv4 has the locking support, but nobody ha
> To summarize, the situation isn't that different from the 'normal'
> situation. After all, even a single instance of cyrus running on one
> machine contains multiple imapds (at least abt one per connection, on
> my current, non-clustered system, abt 1500 at a time). And they all
> access the same
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:31:21AM -0800, Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> > > I tried GFS yesterday, that worked fine too, but I just mounted the
> > > volume just on one box (no real cluster) so it was a lousy test
> > > anyway... (I could try it later, if I can find some time.)
>
> > I was, of cou
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 03:55:38PM +0100, Paul Dekkers wrote:
> I tried GFS yesterday, that worked fine too, but I just mounted the
> volume just on one box (no real cluster) so it was a lousy test
> anyway... (I could try it later, if I can find some time.)
I was, of course, extremely intereste
> Hi,
>
> Simon Matter wrote:
>
>>>Since the use of NFSv4 was mentioned again in the HA thread, I thought
>>>I'd give this a shot by using the imaptest-utility from dovecot (the
>>>only imap stress-testing tool I can think of, I've stressed replication
>>>with it too) and NFSv4 mounts on RedHat.
>>
Hi,
Simon Matter wrote:
Since the use of NFSv4 was mentioned again in the HA thread, I thought
I'd give this a shot by using the imaptest-utility from dovecot (the
only imap stress-testing tool I can think of, I've stressed replication
with it too) and NFSv4 mounts on RedHat.
Maybe it does not
> Hi,
>
> Andrew Laurence wrote:
>
>> Has anyone evaluated the new "fixed" locking in NFSv4 for use with
>> Cyrus? I attended a talk by Sun's Spencer Shepler at USENIX '05 in
>> which he spent a good deal of time on NFSv4 (supposedly) fixes the
>> locking shortcomings and can be used as a native f
Hi,
Andrew Laurence wrote:
Has anyone evaluated the new "fixed" locking in NFSv4 for use with
Cyrus? I attended a talk by Sun's Spencer Shepler at USENIX '05 in
which he spent a good deal of time on NFSv4 (supposedly) fixes the
locking shortcomings and can be used as a native file system.
h
Has anyone evaluated the new "fixed" locking in NFSv4 for use with
Cyrus? I attended a talk by Sun's Spencer Shepler at USENIX '05 in
which he spent a good deal of time on NFSv4 (supposedly) fixes the
locking shortcomings and can be used as a native file system.
http://blogs.sun.com/shepler/da
18 matches
Mail list logo
