[OpenAFS] Solaris 9 issues - making some progress

Renata Maria Dart Renata Maria Dart <renata@slac.stanford.edu>
Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:17:43 -0700 (PDT)

Hi, I see the same thing on our servers...on the servers where
vfsck is behaving correctly, we have kernel patch 112233-12 with 
113073-05 installed.  Our one server which is exhibiting the vfsck
errors has kernel 117171-05 with 113073-13.


>Delivered-To: openafs-info@openafs.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Cc: openafs-info@openafs.org
>From: Dale Ghent <daleg@umbc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Solaris 9 issues - making some progress
>To: "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>
>X-AvMilter-Key: 1092412518:5fb5502cd5e105580a191bf4395ee76f
>X-Avmilter: Clean
>X-Processed-By: MilterMonkey Version 0.9 -- 
>X-BeenThere: openafs-info@openafs.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4
>List-Help: <mailto:openafs-info-request@openafs.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:openafs-info@openafs.org>
>List-Subscribe: <https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info>, 
>List-Id: OpenAFS Info/Discussion <openafs-info.openafs.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info>, 
>List-Archive: <https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/>
>Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:50:16 -0400
>X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Core:, Antispam-Data: 
>On Aug 13, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>> Do you have a diff of the old and new header files?
>> I have patch 112233-12 on my Solaris 9 workstation, but the AFS servers
>> are running with 112233-11 The files are identical.
>You know, this got me thinking, and did some digging around.
>I just went through all of the Solaris 9 UFS and kernel patches, and 
>discovered two patches, 113457 and 113073, which are the only patches 
>which change /usr/include/sys/fs/ufs_fs.h.
>113457 seems to have been withdrawn and superseded by 113073, which is 
>a member of the Solaris 9 recommended patch cluster. This 113073 patch 
>is a comprehensive UFS and LVM patch.
>See, here our Solaris 9 boxes have S9 4/04 installed on them. The 
>Solaris 9 box exhibiting the problems had the recommended cluster 
>applied, which included 113073-13. We have another Solaris 9 box which 
>is running AFS fine which has 113073-05 installed.
>So it seems that somewhere after at least rev 05 of patch 113073 is 
>when sun "broke" UFS as far as what AFS expects, and the kernel patches 
>have no part in this.
>Reading through the release history for the 113073 patch, nothing 
>immediately sticks out as the cause of why 1) fs_interleave was removed 
>from ufs_fs.h, and 2) why vfsck now has issues with block 0 of a UFS 
>file system.
>Can you check your S9 system for me and tell me what rev of 113073 you 
>have installed, if it is installed?
>OpenAFS-info mailing list

 Renata Dart                         | renata@SLAC.Stanford.edu  
 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center  |    
 2575 Sand Hill Road, MS 97          | (650) 926-2848 (office)
 Stanford, California   94025        | (650) 926-3329 (fax)