search for: saction

..., yet xfer speeds always cap out at about 10MB/s. Has any body accomplished bonding with increased throughput as the goal, with or without (without might be preferable) doing something special on the switch (preferably the afore-mentioned Catalyst 2900, as that is what I have to work with as a non-sactioned side-project ;)? --Tim ___________________________________________________ < When pleasure remains, does it remain a pleasure? > --------------------------------------------------- \ \ \ \ /\ ( ) .( o ).

Hello ext3-developers, Just to summarize, I reported a kernel bug message with ext3 on S/390 in transaction.c. I was able to reproduce it with a ext3 on LVM and on MD. Tom Rini reported a similar problem on PPC. (both big endian). I have sent a backtrace and with jbd-debug set to 5 I was not able to reproduce the problem until now. On S/390 there are some more debug possibilities. I would replace the a...

...e reboot, the boot message included this: -- cut here -- cut here -- cut here -- cut here -- cut here -- EXT3-fs: INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem. EXT3-fs: write access will be enabled during recovery. (recovery.c, 253): journal_recover: JBD: recovery, exit status 0, recovered tran sactions 20383 to 20655 (recovery.c, 255): journal_recover: JBD: Replayed 5021 and revoked 37/134 blocks kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds EXT3-fs: md(9,0): orphan cleanup on readonly fs ext3_orphan_cleanup: truncating inode 100113 to 894 bytes EXT3-fs: md(9,0): 1 truncate cleaned up EXT3-fs:...

...ake, we were going to inform the user of their sins when they access to the RO share, by sending them a sysadmin from hell mail, and lots of them. Sadly, however, the preexec function doesn't fire for us. We were really excited about all the mails we would be sending, sort of like big company sactioned spam! ;-) But, alas, something no worky worky. So, that is why I am here. 'til then, Greg Enlow -- Greg Enlow grenlow at hk.mailbox.de On 19 May 2015, at 08:08, Daniel M?ller wrote: Just an idea: Why dont us msdfs just pointing to the netapp with ln -s msdfs: And in the smb.conf e...

...o inform the user of their > sins when they access to the RO share, by sending them a sysadmin from hell > mail, and lots of them. Sadly, however, the preexec function doesn't fire > for us. We were really excited about all the mails we would be sending, > sort of like big company sactioned spam! ;-) But, alas, something no > worky worky. So, that is why I am here. > > 'til then, > Greg Enlow > > -- > > Greg Enlow > grenlow at hk.mailbox.de > > > > On 19 May 2015, at 08:08, Daniel M?ller wrote: > > Just an idea: > Why don...

...o inform the user of their > sins when they access to the RO share, by sending them a sysadmin from hell > mail, and lots of them. Sadly, however, the preexec function doesn't fire > for us. We were really excited about all the mails we would be sending, > sort of like big company sactioned spam! ;-) But, alas, something no > worky worky. So, that is why I am here. > > 'til then, > Greg Enlow > > -- > > Greg Enlow > grenlow at hk.mailbox.de > > > > On 19 May 2015, at 08:08, Daniel M?ller wrote: > > Just an idea: > Why dont us ms...

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 03:31:55PM +0200, Greg Enlow wrote: > Hi, > > The Server to which the msdfs is pointing is a netapp. Though we theoretically can access the shell on it then begin to mess around there, we would really like to avoid that. Warranty and such make it a bit of a legal issue. That is the reason we went with a separate instance in the first place and now wonder why the