[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bugzilla vs. bugzilla
From: Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:32:20 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407281035240.32423-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040728103708.GA26088@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407281035240.32423-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:39:03AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> either one should be fine, we get email from both.  If you're not
> certain it's an xfs bug, then osdl.org would be a better choice.

OK, good.

> Regarding speed of response, it's mostly an issue of time & resources,
> although your bug 2929 was resolved in 1 day, I think, and the last
> one was just bumped over to xfs from nfs, IIRC.

Yes, bug 2929 was quick. While 2841 hasn't gotten any response in ~2
months, and now 3118 hasn't had any response since Trond moved it to
XFS 3 days ago. Unless I get timely response, I'm forced to bet on
luck and jump to the latest release/pre-release hoping it's fixed
there, or convert to another fs :( 

BTW: Together with bug 2840 these problems have oopsed my server about
every second week since I installed it with 2.6.6. 

> FWIW, it looks like you're getting memory allocation failures
> in some of these cases.

Meaning xfs problems, other kernel component error, or hw?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>