has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks. ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5? -- --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/Storage_Administration_Guide/#rhel6storage-whatsnew
fs-cache is a tech preview(Zero support from redhat).
Tried cachefs on a few servers(don't remember if it was rhel 6.1 or 6.2 at
the time), had problems (server hanging/unresponsive), asked redhat for support,
was denied support, removed cachefs.
Unsure if newer versions are more stable.("fool me once" kind if
thing)
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Rita <rmorgan466 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i
> keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks.
>
> ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?
>
> --
> --- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Am 01.03.2014 um 13:48 schrieb Rita <rmorgan466 at gmail.com>:> has anyone been using cachefs with 6.x series? i have tried using it but i > keep getting hung processes after 2 weeks. > > ATM, running 6.3 but was curious if its more stable on Centos 6.5?we use it with nfs (latest EL6 OS version). In the last year we had two system freezes caused by cachefs. Its still a tech preview. the nfs client performance is significant better with cachefs enabled. -- LF
We are using CentOS 6.5 and it has been very stable. we were hit with bugs in 6.2 6.3 and 6.4. -- View this message in context: http://centos.1050465.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-cachefs-tp5724928p5725725.html Sent from the CentOS mailing list archive at Nabble.com.