tags 636306 - moreinfo
forcemerge 657078 636306
quit
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Although the new idmapper may be the way forward, we're stuck with the
> old implementation for now. We should still be able to get rid of the
> huge allocation though.
Ah, didn't notice this was already filed. Merging
On 24/10/11 16:24, Anders Boström wrote:
Hi!
We have got this problem on a NFS-server running Debian stable
amd64. The server has 8Gbyte memory and at times quite high load, but
mostly NFSv3. However, I can't experiment with the patch, this server
is too important and it is hard to schedule ser
Hi!
We have got this problem on a NFS-server running Debian stable
amd64. The server has 8Gbyte memory and at times quite high load, but
mostly NFSv3. However, I can't experiment with the patch, this server
is too important and it is hard to schedule service-windows.
/ Anders
--
To UNSUBSCRI
The trick to do "task || task" in cron did work several times.
I am very grateful but (would you believe it) only yesterday the system
was moved onto something with far more memory. :-(
I doubt it will suffer the problem again. If this becomes an issue for
others I would be happy to set-up a
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 08:44 +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
> Instead of switching to cifs, I tried swapiness=100, and just doubling
> up on the backup job:
>
> 25 23 * * * disk-backup || (sleep 100; disk-backup)
>
> Last night the first backup failed, second backup worked. Yippee.
>
> The first ba
Instead of switching to cifs, I tried swapiness=100, and just doubling
up on the backup job:
25 23 * * * disk-backup || (sleep 100; disk-backup)
Last night the first backup failed, second backup worked. Yippee.
The first backup failed by a simple test for the presence of a file the
nfs mount.
On 02/08/11 11:49, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Does this system have swap enabled?
Afraid so...
elbournb@sv22:~$ free -m
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 184172 11 0 5 69
-/+ buffers/cache: 98
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 11:49 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:13 +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
[...]
> > A "missing" parameter is mentioned here:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/24/73
> [...]
>
> I can't see what you're referring to in that message.
Sorry, I didn't origin
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 08:13 +0100, Berni Elbourn wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Version: 2.6.32-35
> Severity: normal
>
>
> The mount failure occures on this system about 1 in 10. Subsequent
> mounts work just fine. This never happened on Lenny. Sorry if this is
> a duplicate but bts was down whe
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.32-35
Severity: normal
The mount failure occures on this system about 1 in 10. Subsequent mounts work
just fine. This never happened on Lenny. Sorry if this is a duplicate but bts
was down when I ran reportbug. Google seems to go for this:
https://bugzilla.redh
10 matches
Mail list logo
