On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 05:17:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jose Calhariz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I had tested 1.3.81 with kernel 2.6.8, but now I believe that my tests > > where not heavy enough. I will try 1.3.82 and see if something is > > diferent. For me using Debian stable everywhere is very important. But > > stability of openafs is more important. > > Oh, sorry, I hadn't caught that you were using Debian stable. > > Unfortunately, 1.2.13 does not support 2.6 kernels. 1.2.13 with a 2.4 > kernel is an extremely stable configuration, but if you're using a 2.6 > kernel, you probably want to use as recent of a 1.3.x version as you can. > Unfortunately, the problem probably was not fixed between 1.3.81 and > 1.3.82. >
On Debian stable with openafs-client 1.3.81-3sarge1 and
openafs-modules 1.3.82-2+2.4.27-10 and kernel 2.4.27-2-686-smp I see
AFS_VMA_CLOSE messages from the kernel. My test of compiling kernel
2.6.9 with "make -j35", aborts with "file not found" error on a random
file. There is no problem using only "make".
I believe openafs-modules 1.3.82 is better than 1.3.81, but not
enough. When you release 1.3.87, I wil try it. Until then...
What is in your opinion your a safe configuration for openafs with
kernels 2.4.27 from Debian stable?
José Calhariz
--
Todos têm o direito de ser burros, o problema é que alguns abusam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
