[OpenAFS] Serious problem upon rebuild

[Madhusudan Singh]

Derek Atkins wrote:

>>|>
>>|>Cache size (100000) should be less than 95 %(which is 96035) ... Lower
>>|>cache size
>>|
>>|
>>| How big is your /usr/vice/cache partition?
> 
> 
>>100 MB. Which was the original size of the filespace quota on AFS
>>for me . Now that quota is 200 MB. However, the old openafs (1.2.4)
>>rpms worked just fine even after the change. Would I be correct in
>>assuming that the size of the cache partition would ultimately
>>affect only the speed of the access, and not the possibility of
>>operation per se ?
> 
> 
> Note that your AFS volume quota != AFS Cache Size.  What I want to
> know is the output of:
> 
>         df /usr/vice/cache

Ok. I will be in my office in a few hours and will respond then.

> 
> The fact that your personal quota was increased from 100M to 200M is
> irrelevant to the size of your cache.  The size of your cache only
> matters in so far as the amount of data you can cache and reuse
> without going back to the server.  There are tradeoffs for larger
> caches.  In particular, the larger the cache, the larger the overhead.
> However, the larger the cache, the more files you cacn store
> locally....
> 
>>The entire directory ?? Or just the modload tree ?

> 
> 
> The entire directory...  (modulo the AFS Cache, but you probably
> want to clean out the cache, too.)
> 
> You probably want:
>         rm -rf /usr/vice/etc
>         rm -f /usr/vice/cache/*Items

Ok

>>
>>Thanks for the suggestion. However, I am curious if a rebuild of the
>>openafs kernel src rpm generated after the rebuild of the openafs src
>>rpm would do the trick.
> 
> 
> No.  The kernel-source RPM is just that.. _SOURCE_.  You still need to
> follow these instructions to build the kernel module for your kernel.
> I'm just trying to make sure you're using known-to-work packages in
> order to limit the problem.
> 
> Worst case, you may need to "downgrade" to 2.4.18-X... Is that an
> option for you (why are you running 2.4.19)?

Unfortunately not. The vanilla kernel comes with support for APM but not 
ACPI (which my laptop uses). And that messes up the USB ports on my 
laptop (ALi hardware issues). Its a long story.

I know I could probably compile from the source of 2.4.18, but I would 
again need to compile the kernel module as above. Anyways.

Anyways, I will look into the documentation for compiling my own kernel 
module. I hope that it will be as simple as creating a *.o file and 
moving it to the modload tree.

Thanks,

MS.