[OpenAFS] RH9 FS Stability

[Matthew Hoskins]

(didnt reply to list)

Matthew Hoskins wrote:

> Todd M. Lewis wrote:
>
>> [not to the list...]
>>
>> Matthew Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>> What combinations (if any) of kernel/libs result in stable OpenAFS 
>>> fileservers on RH9?   Or are people still running 7.3?   RH Enterprise?
>>> We are rather dependent on our OpenAFS fileservers on RH Linux, but 
>>> are unable to get a stable fileserver on RH9. (RH7.3 is rock solid, 
>>> havn't tried fedora yet)
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't address the other issues, but I did try Fedora Core 1.  I 
>> wouldn't trust a coffee maker running on it, and I don't drink 
>> coffee!  It'll get better I'm sure, but don't go there yet.
>
>
> Of course i would not jump into fedora w/o plenty of testing.  And 
> certainly not before FC2 is released...   Most of fedora's instability 
> are in the fast paced development of the end user (Xll/Gnome/etc...) 
> junk.   But if i tested fedora in the way that i run my other fs 
> servers... which is very stripped down... and it was stable, i would 
> consider it.    For a stable fs i need a compatable and stable 
> combination of kernel+libs+lvm+ext3+OpenAFS.   If fedora can give me 
> that, and i can prove to myself its stable, ill move to it. 
> Thats (one of)  the great thing about AFS/OpenAFS, We can run a mixed 
> envrionment.   If vendor support evaporates (like it always does) we 
> can shift stuff around to suit.  We already run a mixed server env for 
> that reason.
>
>>
>>   I have read previously that there is a bug somewhere
>>
>>> in the nptl code that causes FS instability.   Is this being 
>>> addressed?  Is there a workaround?
>>>
>>> -Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenAFS-info mailing list
>>> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
>>> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
>>
>>
>>
>
>