similar to: GluserFS WORM hardlink

hard linksA read-only file system does not produce a hard link in GlusterFS WORM mode. Is it impossible? OS is CentOS7 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20170710/837d3179/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: error.png

On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Thomas Biege wrote: > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 09:34:10 +0100 (MET) > From: Thomas Biege <thomas@suse.de> > To: Jan-Philip Velders <jpv@jvelders.tn.tudelft.nl> > Cc: linux-security@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [Security - intern] [linux-security] *ALERT*: ADM Worm. Worm for Linux x86 found in wild. > The worm just exploits old security holes, so

-=> To moderator: I don't know whether it's wise to release the FTP-location I would recommend everyone to just look over their daemons, and run something like nessus against theirselves... Greetings, Jan-Philip Velders ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:26:59 -0700 From: "Ben Cantrick (Macky Stingray)" <mackys@MACKY.RONIN.NET> To:

Hello Gluster Community, while reading that article: https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-specs/blob/master/under_review/worm-compliance.md there seems to be an interesting feature planned for the WORM Xlator: *Scheduled Auto-commit*: Scan Triggered Using timeouts for untouched files. The next scheduled namespace scan will cause the transition. CTR DB via libgfdb can be used to find files that

I have received the below notice about the rsync list. There is a worm among us. ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Return-Path: <postmaster@innevi.com> Received: from bleep.innevi.com ([64.30.26.9]) by mail.dubois-king.COM (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1K7n3p14977 for <ppalumbo@dubois-king.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:49:03 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain;

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Ondrej Valousek < Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote: > Yes, I have had this in place already (well except of the negative cache, > but enabling that did not make much effect). > > To me, this is no surprise ? nothing can match nfs performance for small > files for obvious reasons: > Could you give profile info of the run you did with

Well, it might be close to the _synchronous_ nfs, but it is still well behind of the asynchronous nfs performance. Simple script (bit extreme I know, but helps to draw the picture): #!/bin/csh set HOSTNAME=`/bin/hostname` set j=1 while ($j <= 7000) echo ahoj > test.$HOSTNAME.$j @ j++ end rm -rf test.$HOSTNAME.* Takes 9 seconds to execute on the NFS share, but 90 seconds on

Yes, I have had this in place already (well except of the negative cache, but enabling that did not make much effect). To me, this is no surprise ? nothing can match nfs performance for small files for obvious reasons: 1. Single server, does not have to deal with distributed locks 2. Afaik, gluster does not support read/write delegations the same way NFS does. 3. Glusterfs is

We can't stick to single server because the law. Redundancy is a legal requirement for our business. I'm sort of giving up on gluster though. It would seem a pretty stupid content addressable storage would suit our needs better. On 13 March 2018 at 10:12, Ondrej Valousek <Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote: > Yes, I have had this in place already (well except of the negative

That seems unlikely. I pre-create the directory layout and then write to directories I know exist. I don't quite understand how any settings at all can reduce performance to 1/5000 of what I get when writing straight to ramdisk though, and especially when running on a single node instead of in a cluster. Has anyone else set this up and managed to get better write performance? On 13 March

Hi, some more info on the previous admw0rm alert. Fwd'd from BugTraq Greetings, Jan-Philip Velders ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 21:17:40 +0100 From: Mixter <mixter@HOME.POPMAIL.COM> To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG Subject: Re: ADM Worm. Worm for Linux x86 found in wild. The "ADM w0rm" is public and can be found at:

Hi, Gluster will never perform well for small files. I believe there is nothing you can do with this. Ondrej From: gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org [mailto:gluster-users-bounces at gluster.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Ericsson Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:47 PM To: Gluster-users at gluster.org Subject: [Gluster-users] Expected performance for WORM scenario Heya fellas. I've been

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Ondrej Valousek < Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote: > Well, it might be close to the _*synchronous*_ nfs, but it is still well > behind of the asynchronous nfs performance. > > Simple script (bit extreme I know, but helps to draw the picture): > > > > #!/bin/csh > > > > set HOSTNAME=`/bin/hostname` > > set j=1

Hello, Need your guidance in setting up SAMBA 4.2.3 on CentOS7 with proper authentication. Below are the details of my smb.conf file. Problem: incorrect authentication when accessing share from windows machine a) "worm" share is guest only and can be accessed by any person without authentication b) "secure_worm" is share which require authentication from the user when I

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Ondrej Valousek < Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Gluster will never perform well for small files. > > I believe there is nothing you can do with this. > It is bad compared to a disk filesystem but I believe it is much closer to NFS now. Andreas, Looking at your workload, I am suspecting there to be lot of LOOKUPs

I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if I'm doing something wrong. =20 =46rom the worms dataframe, which is at in a file called worms.txt at =20 http://www.imperial.ac.uk/bio/research/crawley/therbook <http://www.imperial.ac.uk/bio/research/mjcraw/therbook/index.htm>=20 =20 the idea is to extract a subset of the rows, sorted in declining order of worm density, with only the maximum

I have setup my application so that the "admin" area is a module (app/worm/ -> admin area) and the "site" area is in the app/ folder. When I try to submit a basic form to the database it says: This error occured while loading the following files: worm/in_your_classroom_link.rb Which I think this means is that it is looking for a worm module in my models folder. Why

VIRUS ALERT Our content checker found virus: Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2 in email presumably from you (<logcheck-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org>), to the following recipient: -> barbier at linuxfr.org Please check your system for viruses, or ask your system administrator to do so. Delivery of the email was stopped! For your reference, here are headers from your email:

Heya fellas. I've been struggling quite a lot to get glusterfs to perform even halfdecently with a write-intensive workload. Testnumbers are from gluster 3.10.7. We store a bunch of small files in a doubly-tiered sha1 hash fanout directory structure. The directories themselves aren't overly full. Most of the data we write to gluster is "write once, read probably never", so 99%

Full_Name: Joerg Rauh Version: 2.5.0 OS: Windows 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (84.168.226.163) Following Michael J. Crawley "Statistical Computing" on page 9 the worms.txt is required. After downloading it from the book's supporting website, which is http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/mjcraw/statcomp/data/ I visually check the data against the book and they look identical. Then I do