Thread: [SSI] (no subject)
Brought to you by:
brucewalker,
rogertsang
From: <kva...@ya...> - 2001-06-22 16:22:13
Attachments:
cluster-tools-0.5.0-alpha.patch
|
Hi , Some minor changes needed to make cluster tools work on Alpha Linux. -aneesh ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie |
From: Sridhar C. <sri...@wi...> - 2002-02-05 06:19:08
Attachments:
InterScan_Disclaimer.txt
|
confirm 881490 |
From: Karl M. <Kar...@ad...> - 2005-07-22 16:20:25
|
Has anyone seen any problems with cvs.openssi.org today? I have tried to diff/update/co and keep getting the message below: cvs [update aborted]: unrecognized auth response from cvs.openssi.org: M = PserverBackend::PserverBackend() Connect (Connection refused) The ci tree is accessed without any problems. =20 Here the commands I am running: # cvs -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/ssic-linux login # cvs -z3 -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/ssic-linux up -r = OPENSSI-FC openssi # cvs -z3 -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/ssic-linux up -r = OPENSSI-FC srpms Recieved the same results from the SuSE tree. -Karl |
From: Brian J. W. <Bri...@hp...> - 2005-07-22 17:53:52
|
Hi Karl, I've confirmed this problem. Can you create a support request with SourceForge describing what's happening and asking them to fix it? The URL is: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=200001 and the category is "Project CVS Services". Thanks, Brian Karl Merritts wrote: > > Has anyone seen any problems with cvs.openssi.org today? > > I have tried to diff/update/co and keep getting the message below: > > cvs [update aborted]: unrecognized auth response from cvs.openssi.org: M > PserverBackend::PserverBackend() Connect (Connection refused) > > The ci tree is accessed without any problems. > > Here the commands I am running: > # cvs -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/ssic-linux login > # cvs -z3 -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/ssic-linux up -r > OPENSSI-FC openssi > # cvs -z3 -d:pserver:ano...@cv...:/cvsroot/ssic-linux up -r > OPENSSI-FC srpms > > Recieved the same results from the SuSE tree. > > -Karl > |
From: Vlad R. <one...@gm...> - 2006-01-18 17:23:49
|
who |
From: John H. <jo...@ca...> - 2009-08-10 10:00:24
|
In include/linux/shm.h we find: /* shm_mode upper byte flags */ #define SHM_DEST 01000 /* segment will be destroyed on last detach */ #define SHM_LOCKED 02000 /* segment will not be swapped */ #define SHM_HUGETLB 04000 /* segment will use huge TLB pages */ #ifdef CONFIG_SSI #define SHM_LOCK_DEST 10000 /* obj locked for destroy */ #endif /* CONFIG_SSI */ The definition of SHM_LOCK_DEST is obviously wrong. Hello everybody from Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. (Message sent via EDGE connection on mobile phone). |
From: Roger T. <rog...@gm...> - 2009-08-12 04:30:17
|
It seems SHM_LOCK_DEST can be discarded. We'll do just that. On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM, John Hughes <jo...@ca...> wrote: > In include/linux/shm.h we find: > > /* shm_mode upper byte flags */ > #define SHM_DEST 01000 /* segment will be destroyed on last detach > */ > #define SHM_LOCKED 02000 /* segment will not be swapped */ > #define SHM_HUGETLB 04000 /* segment will use huge TLB pages */ > #ifdef CONFIG_SSI > #define SHM_LOCK_DEST 10000 /* obj locked for destroy */ > #endif /* CONFIG_SSI */ > > The definition of SHM_LOCK_DEST is obviously wrong. > > |
From: christophe v. <chr...@fr...> - 2002-03-09 14:18:22
|
> It would be possible to develop the code for a cluster with just CFS and > CI (cluster infastructure)=2E =2E=2E and would be desirable to do so : CI + OpenGFS/DLM might then be the prefered architecture for next Oracle Real Application Cluster releases for Linux, making Linux the second=20 environment that support RAC data on a shared FS (with TruCluster) As far as I can tell, CI does everything Oracle does with : o watchdogd o oracm o oranm Is Compaq on its way to promote CI / Linux for Oracle clusters as it does=20 with TruCluster ? --=20 ____________________________________ Christophe Varoqui Architecte Syst=E8me - Devoteam (Fr) SNCF: (033) 01 56 33 03 59 |
From: peter m. <pe...@fa...> - 2002-05-10 04:54:30
|
I've inherited (in the maintenaince sense of the word) two compaq proliant 1850r's with a shared smart array. Currently, they've got unixware 7.1 installed on them. Apparently the unixware install is a nightmare to maintain and I've been asked if there's anything else that can be put on these machines. My hunting has led me here. What I'm wondering (in general) is this: These machines are meant to be a two node, high-availability database cluster. I'm not looking to make these into beta-testing machines. How stable is ssi-linux? This isn't the sort of thing that I'm going to be able to spend hours a week rebooting, and upgrading, and error-reporting (though everyday file system maintenaince is understandable), so in your opinions, is ssi-linux ready for this? Thanks for your time. -Peter |
From: <kva...@ya...> - 2002-06-21 17:11:16
|
Hi, For HA LVS i need a locking mechanism across nodes in a cluster. Right now i am assuming no two nodes acces the configuration file at same time, which is absouletly wrong. I am wondering whether i should use DLM or should i wait for file locking support under CFS. ?I guess We should use DLM. DLM is going to be an important module and we should bring it under /usr/src/linux/cluster directory . This will require some modification to the dlm to make is work independent of dlmdu. Any suggestion. Should i go for DLM or wait for file locking under CFS ? -aneesh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com |
From: Bruce W. <br...@ka...> - 2002-06-21 17:53:20
|
I would suggest using the filesystem locking (GFS, CFS, ...) rather than DLM for this kind of need. The lock requests should work now but are only enforced locally (which will be fixed sometime soon). bruce [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > Hi, > > For HA LVS i need a locking mechanism across nodes in > a cluster. Right now i am assuming no two nodes > acces the configuration file at same time, which is > absouletly wrong. I am wondering whether i should use > DLM or should i wait for file locking support under > CFS. ?I guess We should use DLM. DLM is going to be > an important module and we should bring it under > /usr/src/linux/cluster directory . This will require > some modification to the dlm to make is work > independent of dlmdu. > > Any suggestion. Should i go for DLM or wait for file > locking under CFS ? > > > -aneesh > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Sponsored by: > ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ > _______________________________________________ > ssic-linux-devel mailing list > ssi...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ssic-linux-devel |