[OpenAFS] Re: 1.3.70 comments?

[Douglas E. Engert]

Derrick J Brashear wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> 
>>>>> i don't know what the problem is or how large we can go if that 
>>>>> problem can be addressed, but currently on aix we cannot go to 12000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> The large ticket size was set to match the size of a ticket that Windows
>> could send with a PAC. You could try building with a smaller size.
> 
> 
> He did, that's how we know that's what the problem is.
> 
>> When you say "on aix we cannot go to 12000" What do you mean?  is it 
>> failing
>> somewhere?  The actual size of the ticket is what is sent on the wire,
>> and transfered by pioctl.
> 
> 
> I could swear all the previous context for this was here. Anyway, yes, 
> klog fails.
> 
>> Is this a problem with LWP not alloacting a large enough stack to hold
>> automatic data that might have allowed for a max ticket?
>> lwp.h has #define AFS_LWP_MINSTACKSIZE    (48 * 1024)
>> Is this two small?
> 
> 
> then it has to be somewhere allocating a ktc_token off the stack, i guess.


That was I was thinking and there might even be more then one. Can he try
building with AFS_LWP_MINSTACKSIZE at (64 * 1024) ? to give it
room for two of these?

I know when I was porting AFS to the ia64_hpux1123 the size of the UCONTEXT
was causing strange problems in the LWP with klog. The UCONTEXT
is about 48K and there where two of them added to the stack.




> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
> 
> 
> 

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444