Re: [Nbd] probs with nbd-client 2.9.13 running on centos 5.4 (64bit)
- To: Daniel Schwager <Daniel.Schwager@...207...>
- Cc: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] probs with nbd-client 2.9.13 running on centos 5.4 (64bit)
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:57:35 +0100
- Message-id: <20091104015734.GD10593@...510...>
- In-reply-to: <EB31672367A401439CD5A4A10889D57B02118654@...661...>
- References: <EB31672367A401439CD5A4A10889D57B02118654@...661...>
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 08:04:08PM +0100, Daniel Schwager wrote:
> Hi Wouter,
>
> we try to install nbd-client on an new, vanilla Centos5.4-64bit
> and got a different behavior on 2 points against a FC9-64bit
> installation:
>
> a) running without using "-nofork" create TWO processes of nbd-client:
> 2953 ? Ss 0:00 /opt/nbd/usr/sbin/nbd-client
> storage13.dev.xx.de 1024 /dev/nbd0
> 2954 ? S 0:00 /opt/nbd/usr/sbin/nbd-client
> storage13.dev.xx.de 1024 /dev/nbd0
>
> running the same command on FC9 forks only ONE nbd-client process and
> one nbd0 process:
> 20655 ? S 0:00 /opt/nbd/usr/sbin/nbd-client
> storage13.dev.xx.de 1024 /dev/nbd0
> 20656 ? S< 0:00 [nbd0]
>
> Is this a problem ?
I don't think so, but I'm not sure where the difference is coming from.
I'm guessing that the kernel just doesn't rename the process to a kernel
thread on CentOS, while it does do so on Fedora, but I'm not sure.
Could you mail me (off-list) an strace of both cases, so I can
investigate? Thanks.
> b) Running nbc-client with -c to get the PID fails on centos
> because of missing file /sys/block/nbd0/pid:
That's because 2.6.18 was released in October 2006, and the patch that
added that PID file got into Linus' tree in December of that year...
Commit-id (if you wish to cherry-pick the patch) is
6b39bb6548d60b9a18826134b5ccd5c3cef85fe2
--
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html
Reply to: