On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:20:18PM +0100, Stephan Wiesand wrote:
Hi Dan,
On Nov 8, 2012, at 16:41 , Dan Van Der Ster wrote:
[...]
All of the nasty details of this incident here:
https://afs.web.cern.ch/afs/reports/html/afs200SegFaults.html
We're now running with a workaround,
On Nov 8, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net wrote:
Note that 1.6 and beyond is safe from this RHEL kernel change since
Simon already patched fssync to use poll() 5 years ago ;)
That's not true; the code was written to use poll() but was not enabled
until very recently.
Dear OpenAFS 1.4.x Users,
At CERN we just suffered from a confusing problem where the fileserver process
would regularly segfault (on only one new server just put into production).
Since a gdb of the fileserver core file was showing random bit flips here and
there, we initially suspected a bad
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Dan Van Der Ster
daniel.vanders...@cern.ch wrote:
Dear OpenAFS 1.4.x Users,
At CERN we just suffered from a confusing problem where the fileserver
process would regularly segfault (on only one new server just put into
production). Since a gdb of the
Hi, does this issue apply to both rhel5 and 6?
Thanks,
Renata
Unless you manually set HAVE_POLL, you may not have it enabled in 1.6:
we didn't actually do the configure test for it. It will be fixed in 1.6.2.
Incidentally, of note, currently salvsync unlike fssync doesn't ever try
poll().
Der Ster; openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] 1.4.x, select() and recent RHEL kernels beware
Hi, does this issue apply to both rhel5 and 6?
Thanks,
Renata
Unless you manually set HAVE_POLL, you may not have it enabled in 1.6:
we didn't actually do the configure test
From what I see on our most recent RHEL derived SLC kernels this change
is only in 6.
Cheers,
Arne
On Nov 8, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Renata Maria Dart ren...@slac.stanford.edu
wrote:
Hi, does this issue apply to both rhel5 and 6?
Thanks,
Renata
Unless you manually set HAVE_POLL, you
Hi Dan,
On Nov 8, 2012, at 16:41 , Dan Van Der Ster wrote:
[...]
All of the nasty details of this incident here:
https://afs.web.cern.ch/afs/reports/html/afs200SegFaults.html
We're now running with a workaround,
ulimit -Hn 1024; ulimit -Sn 1024
in our init scripts until we manage to
Hi Dan, thanks for your efforts in researching this problem and
posting it. And thanks to Arne for his response as well.
Renata
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Dan Van Der Ster wrote:
Just run
ulimit -Hn
If it says 4096 your AFS will probably crash. If it says 1024 you are safe (as
far as we've
