[OpenAFS] [Fwd: OpenAFS-info digest, Vol 1 #2127 - 12 msgs]
Kris Van Hees
aedil-afs@alchar.org
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:00:32 -0500
Ray,
What version of OpenAFS is running on the fileserver for this, and
what version is the 'vos' executable from? I could think of a few scenarios
where this could happen, with the code changes that were introduced a while
ago to handle the timestamps. A move sound pleasable since you indeed create
a new volume in that case, but the last update information should typically
still be what was on the original volume, since that reflects the last update
on the data contained in the volume.
Kris
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 08:10:49AM -0600, Ray Pasetes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand the case of replicated volumes, but why would the update be
> < the create time for non-replicated volumes?
>
>
> bash-2.03# /usr/afs/bin/vos exam XXXXX
> XXXXX 1685424002 RW 845553 K On-line
> FFFFFFF /vicepd
> RWrite 1685424002 ROnly 0 Backup 1685424004
> MaxQuota 3000000 K
> Creation Sun Dec 19 01:50:29 1999
> Copy Tue Jun 17 14:39:36 2003
> Backup Tue Dec 14 11:10:29 2004
> Last Update Fri Jan 2 13:22:15 1998
> 3019 accesses in the past day (i.e., vnode references)
>
> RWrite: 1685424002 Backup: 1685424004
> number of sites -> 1
> server FFFFFF partition /vicepd RW Site
>
>
> Would this be the case if we moved a volume too since technically
> it creates a new one on a different server and deletes the old one?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:36:20 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
> To: "Kristen J. Webb" <kwebb@teradactyl.com>,
> openafs-info@openafs.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Differences in vos e output
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:33:03 -0700 "Kristen J. Webb"
> <kwebb@teradactyl.com> wrote:
>
> >It appears that there may be more issues related
> >to the display of the Last Update field
> >
> >1.3 output:
> >
> > Creation Sun Dec 19 06:50:29 1999
> > Copy Fri Oct 31 12:09:16 2003
> > Backup Wed Dec 15 15:11:18 2004
> > Last Update Wed Jul 14 06:13:18 1999
> >
> >1.2 output:
> >
> > Creation Sun Dec 19 06:50:29 1999
> > Last Update Sun Dec 19 06:50:29 1999
> >
> >In the 1.3 output the last update is
> >older than the creation date in this example.
> >
> >It seems that it should be the same as
> >the Creation date or Never in this instance.
>
> If you were parsing the output of "vos examine" to see when a volume was
> modified in 1.2, then you are going to be unhappy some of the time.
>
> You see, volumes have something like 5 or 6 different timestamps. If
> you're doing an incremental dump, then the one you want is the one printed
> by 1.3 as the "last update" stamp. In certain circumstances this can be
> older than the creation stamp, because of what constitutes "creation" of a
> volume. For example, on a cloned volume this is the date the clone was
> created, which is always more recent than the last time the source volume
> was modified.
>
> Unfortunately, in OpenAFS 1.2.x and earlier, vos tries to be "friendly".
> The number it prints next to "Last Update" is actually the more recent of
> the creationDate or the updateDate. Starting in 1.3, it will print the
> actual updateDate, even if it is older than the creationDate.
>
>
> -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@cmu.edu>
> Sr. Research Systems Programmer
> School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
> Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
>
>
> --
> ==============================================
> Ray Pasetes Email: rayp@fnal.gov
> CD/CSS/CSI Phone: 630-840-5250
> Fermilab, Batavia, IL Fax : 630-840-6345
> ==============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
--
Never underestimate a Mage with:
- the Intelligence to cast Magic Missile,
- the Constitution to survive the first hit, and
- the Dexterity to run fast enough to avoid being hit a second time.