> I hope there is enough room there for me if this
> turns out to be some stupid bug. But for now I have 
> no idea what could be causing these problems.

I have a few questions about coda configuration,
perhaps I am simply not doing something right.

First I deleted all of my config files and started
fresh.  Then I ran vice-setup on m2.public and made it
the scm.

the vice-setup from cvs is different from what is
include in coda-6.0.7.  First thing I noticed is that
it did not ask me what was the name of my RootVolume.
Then at the end of the setup, it told me to run this
command to create a volume:
"createvol_rep / m2.public/vicepa"

However when I ran this command I got the following
output:

"createvol_rep / m2.public/vicepa"
awk: cmd. line:1:  $1 ~ /^/$/  {print $1}
awk: cmd. line:1:           ^ parse error
awk: cmd. line:1:  $1 ~ /^/$/  {print $1}
awk: cmd. line:1:            ^ unterminated regexp
Replicated volumeid is 7f000000
creating volume /.0 on m2.public (partition /vicepa)
V_BindToServer: binding to host m2.public
V_BindToServer: binding to host m2.public
Set Log parameters
Fetching volume lists from servers:
V_BindToServer: binding to host m2.public
GetVolumeList finished successfully
 m2.public - success
V_BindToServer: binding to host m2.public
VLDB completed.
<echo / 7f000000 1 1000001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >>
/vice/db/VRList.new>
V_BindToServer: binding to host m2.public
VRDB completed.
Do you wish this volume to be Backed Up (y/n)? [n] y
Day to take full dumps: [Mon]
echoing         IFIIIII        / >>/vice/db/dumplist
-------------------------------------------------------

"createvol_rep Coda.Storage m2.public/vicepa"
The output of this command was the same as previous,
without the errors at the top. 

Now, my question is, Is a root volume still needed for
coda to function correctly?  Or can I just create 1
volume called Coda.Storage and work off of that?

When I used coda-6.0.7(tarball) and replication, I
created a RootVolume using "createvol_rep CodaRoot
m1.public/vicepa m2.public/vicepa". Then I did the
same thing with a volume called storage.  Is this the
right way to do it? Or should I have created a
seperate root volume on each server?

If I had replicated volumes, and I make a change from
a client, is the change stored on both servers at the
same time, or is there some sort of update schedule?

Here's a random question, I have 3 Replicating
servers.
I pour water on 2 of them. Is my filesystem still
alive as far as my clients are concerned? Or will they
all just disconnect?

Uhh, that's all of I can think of right now.  Gonna
try to do replication again, with cvs libraries and
coda. Will see if that works, or if I atleast get new
errors. 
I like new errors, makes it easy to forget about the
ones that I couldn't fix :-)

Thanks again.

-RD

--- Jan Harkes <jaharkes_at_cs.cmu.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 09:34:10PM -0500, Jan Harkes
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:14:50PM -0800,
> redirecting decoy wrote:
> > > So tell me, how is it that I can't make this
> nice
> > > little filesystem function correctly.  I
> "guess", the
> > 
> > Not sure, my current guess is that there is
> something whacky with the
> > networking setup. Your servers might be
> multi-homed, firewalled, or some
> > other reason why the server cannot set up a
> working connection back to
> > the client.
> 
> On closer look at the log you sent me, the
> RPC2_NAKED message is once
> the callback connection was already bound and
> happens when the first
> callback RPC is sent to test the connection.
> 
> It happens when the side of the connection on the
> client was destroyed,
> but I haven't found a reason why it would be.
> 
> > > 2) cfs reconnect
> > >   *Note: I have never been able to get this
> command to work.
> > 
> > cfs disconnect activates a 'fail filter' in the
> RPC2 layer. Basically
> > this filter quietly drops any packet we receive or
> try to send. There
> > are other filters available that slow down packets
> to simulate a modem
> > (low bandwidth) or a satellite link (high latency)
> connection, but those
> > are mostly for experiments and not enabled by
> default.
> 
> and cfs reconnect simply removes the filter, but
> doesn't reprobe the
> servers.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 02:14:50PM -0800,
> redirecting decoy wrote:
> > Thanks in advance, I'm going to go hide under a
> rock.
> 
> I hope there is enough room there for me if this
> turns out to be some
> stupid bug. But for now I have no idea what could be
> causing these
> problems.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com