[OpenAFS] 1.4.5 namei on solaris 9 sparc requires AlwaysAttach
for vice partitions
Jason Edgecombe
jason@rampaginggeek.com
Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:04:41 -0500
Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007 3:34 PM, Jason Edgecombe <jason@rampaginggeek.com
> <mailto:jason@rampaginggeek.com>> 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
> /vicep?/AlwaysAttach" first. These are dedicated partitions on
> separate
> hard drives.
>
> I'm using a source-compiled openafs on solaris 9 sparc. openafs was
> compiled with the following options:
> CC=/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc YACC="yacc -vd" ./configure \
> --enable-transarc-paths \
> --enable-largefile-fileserver \
> --enable-supergroups \
> --enable-namei-fileserver \
> --with-krb5-conf=/usr/local/krb5/bin/krb5-config
>
> We're using MIT kerberos 1.4.1 on the clients & fileservers with a
> 1.6.x KDC
>
> # mount | grep vicep
> /vicepa on /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s6
> read/write/setuid/intr/largefiles/logging/xattr/onerror=panic/dev=1d80006
> on Thu Nov 29 13:03:15 2007
> /vicepd on /dev/dsk/c0t3d0s6
> read/write/setuid/intr/largefiles/logging/xattr/onerror=panic/dev=1d80016
> on Thu Nov 29 13:03:15 2007
> /vicepc on /dev/dsk/c0t2d0s6
> read/write/setuid/intr/largefiles/logging/xattr/onerror=panic/dev=1d8001e
>
> on Thu Nov 29 13:03:15 2007
> /vicepb on /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s6
> read/write/setuid/intr/largefiles/xattr/onerror=panic/dev=1d8000e
> on Thu
> Nov 29 13:03:15 2007
>
> # grep vicep /etc/vfstab
> /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s6 /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s6 /vicepa ufs 3
> yes -
> /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s6 /dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s6 /vicepb ufs 3
> yes -
> /dev/dsk/c0t2d0s6 /dev/rdsk/c0t2d0s6 /vicepc ufs 3
> yes -
>
> #cat SalvageLog
> @(#) OpenAFS 1.4.5 built 2007-11-28
> 11/29/2007 09:52:59 STARTING AFS SALVAGER 2.4 (/usr/afs/bin/salvager)
> 11/29/2007 09:52:59 No file system partitions named /vicep* found; not
> salvaged
>
> 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?
Should I file a bug?
Jason