[Gluster-users] warning: pure path resolution
paul at realisestudio.com
Wed Jun 15 15:19:18 UTC 2011
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
>> may as well be discarded?
> 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
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gluster-users