[ENBD] (no subject)

[Peter T. Breuer]

"A month of sundays ago HUDZIA Bertrand wrote:"
> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> > (reformatted to 72 chars/line)
> 
> Hu ?

Your lines were coming out as beyond 72 characters in length, making it
difficult to quote them and to respond line by line.  I reformatted!

> Maybe that can explain : the install on the 2 pc are not quite the same.
> I didn't manage to compil on the serv , i cought :
> 
> [root@serv nbd-2.4.28]# make
> make config
> make[1]: Entre dans le r_pertoire `/usr/src/nbd-2.4.28'
> export CONFIG_SITE=/usr/src/nbd-2.4.28/conf/config.Linux; \
> cd /tmp/heho;  ./configure --srcdir=/usr/src/nbd-2.4.28/nbd; \
> make VPATH=/usr/src/nbd-2.4.28/nbd CFLAGS="-O2 -Wall -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -I/tmp/heho -I/usr/src/nbd-2.4.28/linux/include  -DDEBUG=0" LIBS="  " config
> make[2]: Entre dans le r_pertoire `/tmp/heho'
> gcc -O2 -Wall -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -I/tmp/heho -I/usr/src/nbd-2.4.28/linux/include  -DDEBUG=0    /usr/src/nbd-2.4.28/nbd/config.c   -o config

Interesting. It should not be trying to make anything called "config".
It should do the ./configure, which makes the Makefile in /tmp from
Makefile.in, and then calls "make config" against that makefile, and
there's an explict config target there.

Perhaps you have old remnants of some other compilation there? try
"make clean" or "rm /tmp/heho/config* /tmp/heho/Make*".

> But on the client, it manage to compil well. Binary don't complain running on the other.

These things are not random!

> > > Both pc run 2.4.18 kernel under a RedHat-7.2 on a pIII 950Mhz.
> > > serv got 256 Mo RAM and cli have 128 Mo.
> > 
> > So these are uniprocessors? On a uniprocessor kernel?
> 
> Yes, uniprocessor kernel .

OK, well, there are no known problems (at the moment!).

> > It sounds all OK. Would you mind running nbd-test on the device, with
> > some size limit like "-s 4G""?  The only thing untested about your
> > setup is the very large size it has. I run pretty much the same setup
> > but at 4GB.
> 
> Test is running , i'll tell u the result tomorow (yes, i'm in France ;).
> 
> > The more info you can get the better.  What are your
> > /proc/sys/vm/bdflush settings? Memory overcommit?
> 
> 
> With dmesg , i got those : 
> 
> 	NBD #5404[0]: nbd_init Network Block Device support by pavel@elf.mj.gts.cz
> 	NBD #5405[0]: nbd_init Network Block Device port to 2.0 by ptb@it.uc3m.es
> 	NBD #5406[0]: nbd_init Network Block Device move networking to user space by amarin@it.uc3m.es
> 	NBD #5408[0]: nbd_init Enhanced Network Block Device 2.4.27 $Date$ by ptb@it.uc3m.es
> 
> It tells : 2.4.27 ???? i took the .tgz yesterday ... and i'm sure that it was writen 2.4.28.

It's probably a bug ;-). I keep forgetting to bump the version number
in the code. Yes. Well done. Bug corrected ...

> 	NBD #5419[0]: nbd_init registered device at major 43
> 	NBD #2929[0]: nbd_set_blksize blksize too big (0)

That's a bit funny. But I guess it just kept the default.

> 	NBD #2835[0]: nbd_set_sock setting unsigned device nda! But harmless.
> 	NBD #2894[0]: nbd_set_sock increased socket count to 1
> 
> 
> Are those really harmless ? what does that mean ? "unsigned device nda"

You sign it when you run the client.  Thereafter only clients with the
same signature can connect to the device.  The signature comes across
from the server end in the client/server negotations. As I recall, it's
the "-i" argument to the server, or a random sequence generated
internally. If it's a random sequence, you will have trouble
reconnecting ..

The message says that some minor setup code was run before anybody signed the
device. This is not surprising, and is harmless.

Peter