On 20.01.21 17:04, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 04:53:26PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 15:44, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
[...]
From a glance, it looks to me like two coroutines are created
simultaneously in two threads, and so one
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 04:53:26PM +0100, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 20.01.21 15:44, Max Reitz wrote:
> > On 20.01.21 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > From a glance, it looks to me like two coroutines are created
> > > simultaneously in two threads, and so one thread sets up a special
> > >
On 20.01.21 16:53, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 15:44, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
[...]
From a glance, it looks to me like two coroutines are created
simultaneously in two threads, and so one thread sets up a special
SIGUSR2 action, then another reverts SIGUSR2
On 20.01.21 15:44, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
[...]
From a glance, it looks to me like two coroutines are created
simultaneously in two threads, and so one thread sets up a special
SIGUSR2 action, then another reverts SIGUSR2 to the default, and then
the first
On 20.01.21 15:34, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 14:50, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 11:39, Max Reitz wrote:
On 19.01.21 20:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
19.01.2021 21:40, Max Reitz wrote:
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours
On 20.01.21 14:50, Max Reitz wrote:
On 20.01.21 11:39, Max Reitz wrote:
On 19.01.21 20:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
19.01.2021 21:40, Max Reitz wrote:
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails
On 20.01.21 11:39, Max Reitz wrote:
On 19.01.21 20:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
19.01.2021 21:40, Max Reitz wrote:
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails
for backup.
And setting small
On 19.01.21 20:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
19.01.2021 21:40, Max Reitz wrote:
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails
for backup.
And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1
19.01.2021 21:40, Max Reitz wrote:
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails for backup.
And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1 doesn't help! (setting
speed like in v3 still helps).
And I
19.01.2021 22:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hmmm, for me, 129 sometimes fails still, because it completes too quickly...
(The error then is that 'return[0]' does not exist in query-block-jobs’s
result, because the job is already gone.)
When I insert a print(result) after the
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails for backup.
And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1 doesn't help! (setting
speed like in v3 still helps).
And I found, that the problem is that
18.01.2021 18:07, Max Reitz wrote:
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails for backup.
And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1 doesn't help! (setting
speed like in v3 still helps).
And I
On 16.01.21 22:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails for backup.
And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1 doesn't help! (setting
speed like in v3 still helps).
And I found, that the problem is that
Hi Max!
I applied my series onto yours 129-fixing and found, that 129 fails for backup.
And setting small max-chunk and even max-workers to 1 doesn't help! (setting
speed like in v3 still helps).
And I found, that the problem is that really, the whole backup job goes during
drain, because in new
14 matches
Mail list logo
