What's the underlying filesystem? AFS passes through the semantics of
metadata operations of the underlying filesystem, and ext* for instance is
poor at it.
For example xfs on Linux has worked well for us.
We are running an old version of AFS.. 1.4.1. Are there any
configuration
inode is still recommended for Solaris. namei is recommended in all other
cases, and generally is the only possible method.
I would recommend namei for all new installations. Is there any reason against
that which I'm not aware of?
Harald.
___
Hi,
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are
usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition
with ext2.
Why is that? What's the problem with reiser as cacheFS ?
Just curious
Martin
Hi!
I' ve updated our PowerPC Mac with latest available OpenAFS version for
PPC Mac OS X Tiger, which was 1.5.26.
For bad sake, MacOS X just went bad every shutdown and OpenAFS seems to
be the reason because of which MacOS X won't shutdown clear and ends in
a kernel panic.
Is there any
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are
usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition
with ext2.
To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that
file system. At all. As a cache file system ext2 is fine, because it
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 schrieb ext Harald Barth:
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are
usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition
with ext2.
To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that
file
Russ Allbery wrote:
Jason Edgecombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
chapter1:
* about upgrading OS:
**Should the namei fileserver be mentioned? Is namei the
recommended way?
inode is still recommended for Solaris. namei is recommended in all other
cases, and generally is the only
On Nov 29, 2007, at 07:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 schrieb ext Harald Barth:
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems
are
usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one
partition
with ext2.
To all my experience,
Hello!
I´ve just installed three AFS clients, and everything seems to work fine! The
only problem is that I would like to get my afs-token on login, without having
to type klog.
Any idea?
Thank you very much,
Lara
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
For a cache partition, at least on other *ixes, the cache partition
has always needed special attention because of the way its used by
the
AFS kernel module. Certain care has to be taken as to do operations
in such a way that kernel deadlocks and such are avoided. For
example, on Solaris
On Nov 29, 2007 5:58 AM, Lars Schimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I' ve updated our PowerPC Mac with latest available OpenAFS version for
PPC Mac OS X Tiger, which was 1.5.26.
For bad sake, MacOS X just went bad every shutdown and OpenAFS seems to
be the reason because of which MacOS X
On Nov 29, 2007, at 08:39, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Russ Allbery writes:
** about fsck: does solaris use inode, namei or both? Is
clarification needed?
Solaris can use either, so yes, clarification is needed. I'm
fairly sure
you don't need the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Russ Allbery writes:
** about fsck: does solaris use inode, namei or both? Is
clarification needed?
Solaris can use either, so yes, clarification is needed. I'm fairly sure
you don't need the custom fsck if you use namei.
you do not need the custom fsck for
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Harald Barth wr
ites:
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are
usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition
with ext2.
To all my experience, reiserfs is broken. I recommend NOT to use that
file system. At all.
Rob Banz wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007, at 07:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 29. November 2007 schrieb ext Harald Barth:
We use openafs clients on a lot of machines. The local Filesystems are
usually reiser. But for the DiskCache we have to install one partition
with ext2.
To all my
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 5:58 AM, Lars Schimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I' ve updated our PowerPC Mac with latest available OpenAFS version for
PPC Mac OS X Tiger, which was 1.5.26.
For bad sake, MacOS X just went bad every shutdown and OpenAFS seems to
be the reason
On Nov 29, 2007 9:01 AM, Lars Schimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 5:58 AM, Lars Schimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I' ve updated our PowerPC Mac with latest available OpenAFS version for
PPC Mac OS X Tiger, which was 1.5.26.
For bad sake,
On Nov 29, 2007 8:57 AM, Rob Banz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a cache partition, at least on other *ixes, the cache partition
has always needed special attention because of the way its used by
the
AFS kernel module. Certain care has to be taken as to do operations
in such a way
chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],Russ Allbery writes:
** about fsck: does solaris use inode, namei or both? Is
clarification needed?
Solaris can use either, so yes, clarification is needed. I'm fairly sure
you don't need the custom fsck if you use namei.
Hi,
I'd like to resize (enlarge) the ext2-partition on which e.g.
/vicepa is mounted.
I know how to enlarge an ext2 partition using Linux tools,
but how does OpenAFS react to this situtation?
Does it use the additional space or is there any danger
OpenAFS gets confused?
Many thanks for a hint,
On Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM, Helmut Jarausch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to resize (enlarge) the ext2-partition on which e.g.
/vicepa is mounted.
I know how to enlarge an ext2 partition using Linux tools,
but how does OpenAFS react to this situtation?
Does it use the additional
On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:38 , Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM, Helmut Jarausch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aachen.de wrote:
I'd like to resize (enlarge) the ext2-partition on which e.g.
/vicepa is mounted.
It doesn't care, and won't use it unless you increase the number in
the
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM, Helmut Jarausch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to resize (enlarge) the ext2-partition on which e.g.
/vicepa is mounted.
I know how to enlarge an ext2 partition using Linux tools,
but how
Lara Lloret Iglesias wrote:
Hello!
I´ve just installed three AFS clients, and everything seems to work fine! The
only problem is that I would like to get my afs-token on login, without having
to type klog.
Any idea?
Yes use pam_krb5 and pam_afs_session. I am assuming that your site has
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
If the files are truly intended for read-only use, store them in a
directory that provides only 'rl' access to the end users or store them
in a .readonly volume. In both of those cases the AFS Cache Manager
knows that the user cannot obtain a lock on the file and will
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Lara Lloret Iglesias wrote:
Hello!
I´ve just installed three AFS clients, and everything seems to work fine! The
only problem is that I would like to get my afs-token on login, without having
to type klog.
Any idea?
Use a pam module, such as Russ' pam-afs-session:
Am Donnerstag 29 November 2007 schrieb Helmut Jarausch:
I'd like to resize (enlarge) the ext2-partition on which e.g.
/vicepa is mounted.
Does it use the additional space or is there any danger
OpenAFS gets confused?
It will happily use the additional space.
Bye...
Dirk
Thanks everybody for your input! I just started my postion here and
inherited this AFS deployment. It was great that the previous people
chose AFS, but they deployed it wrong. I decided on using the XFS file
system, Also I will be upgrading to 1.4.7
The very first day I was here I got queries
On Nov 29, 2007 10:42 AM, Steve Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM, Helmut Jarausch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to resize (enlarge) the ext2-partition on which e.g.
/vicepa is
On Nov 29, 2007 12:52 PM, Jerry Normandin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks everybody for your input! I just started my postion here and
inherited this AFS deployment. It was great that the previous people
chose AFS, but they deployed it wrong. I decided on using the XFS file
system, Also I
After the recent thread openafs upgrade from 1.4.1 to 1.5.7, and a
review of a thread[1] from July, I'm wondering if there is a definitive
recommendation for which file system to use on Linux AFS file servers.
Ext3, XFS, JFS, something else?
Thanks all,
-Matt
[1]
Jason Edgecombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fascinating. I did not know of UFS logging issue on the cache partition.
Strangely, I haven't heard of any issues. does ext3 have this issue as
well?
No, ext3 is fine. UFS logging is also fine provided that nothing else is
writing to the same
Smith, Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After the recent thread openafs upgrade from 1.4.1 to 1.5.7, and a
review of a thread[1] from July, I'm wondering if there is a definitive
recommendation for which file system to use on Linux AFS file servers.
Ext3, XFS, JFS, something else?
It shouldn't
Dale Ghent wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Jason Edgecombe wrote:
I'm experiencing poor AFS performance on under Sparc solaris 9 09/05HW
running Openafs server 1.4.1 on a Sun StorageTeck 3511 Fibre channel to
SATA array
At first, I thought that having UFS logging disabled was the
Hi all,
In my sordid saga to get a Sun fibre channel array working well with
AFS, I found the following:
When I upgraded the server to 1.4.5 namei, the fileserver would not
mount the /vicep? partitions without doing a touch
/vicep?/AlwaysAttach first. These are dedicated partitions on separate
At 10:59 AM 11/29/2007, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Therefore, if you are providing files to be used simply as read only
templates, they should be stored in AFS in a manner that indicates to
the AFS client that they are in fact readonly so that the cache manager
knows it is safe to fake the locks
ok, I'm now some better performance out of my FC array. vos move
of a
4.4GB volume from one disk in the FC array to another disk in the
array
only took 16 minutes (4.6MB/s).
Derrick's suggestion of upgrading to 1.4.5 with namei did the trick.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can upgrade the
On Nov 29, 2007 3:34 PM, Jason Edgecombe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
In my sordid saga to get a Sun fibre channel array working well with
AFS, I found the following:
When I upgraded the server to 1.4.5 namei, the fileserver would not
mount the /vicep? partitions without doing a touch
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 3:34 PM, Jason Edgecombe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
In my sordid saga to get a Sun fibre channel array working well with
AFS, I found the following:
When I upgraded the server to 1.4.5 namei, the
Does anyone know why this would be happening?
Probably a bug in the what's acceptable as a vice partition logic...
which I thought i fixed before 1.4.5; i bet i committed the wrong
thing (because i tested it)
Is it safe to run like this?
yup
Should I file a bug?
I also was today surprised when I started the freshly compiled 1.4.5
fileserver on Solaris and it didn't attach any partition.
There was a change between 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 in favour of zfs, but a
unfortunately broken:
/* Ignore non ufs or non read/write partitions */
if
Rodney M. Dyer wrote:
At 10:59 AM 11/29/2007, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
Therefore, if you are providing files to be used simply as read only
templates, they should be stored in AFS in a manner that indicates to
the AFS client that they are in fact readonly so that the cache manager
knows it is
Smith, Matt wrote:
After the recent thread openafs upgrade from 1.4.1 to 1.5.7, and a
review of a thread[1] from July, I'm wondering if there is a definitive
recommendation for which file system to use on Linux AFS file servers.
Ext3, XFS, JFS, something else?
Thanks all,
-Matt
[1]
Thanks Jeffrey,
snip
Therefore, if you are providing files to be used simply as read only
templates, they should be stored in AFS in a manner that indicates to
the AFS client that they are in fact readonly so that the cache manager
knows it is safe to fake the locks locally.
Would this also be
Hans Melgers wrote:
Thanks Jeffrey,
snip
Therefore, if you are providing files to be used simply as read only
templates, they should be stored in AFS in a manner that indicates to
the AFS client that they are in fact readonly so that the cache manager
knows it is safe to fake the locks
45 matches
Mail list logo
