[Gluster-users] warning: pure path resolution

[paul simpson]

many thanks all!  it's reassuring to know.  looking forward to 3.2.2 - as
right now i'm scared to upgrade from 3.1.3 which seems to be working pretty
smoothly within a defined range.

out of interest - is full posix compatibility (ie, proper nlm locking) on
the immediate todo list?


On 15 June 2011 15:29, Joe Landman <landman at scalableinformatics.com> wrote:

> On 06/15/2011 10:23 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:16:02AM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
>>
>>  As a general rule, the W simply tells you its a warning.
>>>
>>
>> In practice, is it safe to simply ignore all warnings from Gluster?
>> Different projects have different thresholds between no warning, warning,
>> and critical messages. Is Gluster's, in your experience, such that
>> warnings
>> may as well be discarded?
>>
>> Whit
>>
>
>
> Ok ... Warnings shouldn't be ignored, just logged. In most cases, they will
> turn out to be nothing.  In some cases, they may turn out to be something.
>  I'll defer to the devs, but our experience suggests that warnings that
> don't develop into E states are things you don't have to worry about.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Landman, Ph.D
> Founder and CEO
> Scalable Informatics Inc.
> email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
> web  : http://scalableinformatics.com
>       http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster
> phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
> fax  : +1 866 888 3112
> cell : +1 734 612 4615
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110615/8bb8328b/attachment.html>