From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l6LEwSbm003297 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:29 -0700 Message-ID: <46A21F16.5080601@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:58:30 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: New CentOS4/RHEL4-compatible xfs module rpms References: <4560AB84.9060200@sandeen.net> <48478.193.203.83.22.1184855825.squirrel@colo.loreland.org> <469F8005.3080104@sandeen.net> <73EF8A3A-4768-4717-88B4-57A2E00D4E02@loreland.org> In-Reply-To: <73EF8A3A-4768-4717-88B4-57A2E00D4E02@loreland.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: James Braid Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com James Braid wrote: > On 19 Jul 2007, at 16:15, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> That's odd. You have the module on the server, exporting an xfs >> filesystem, and you're getting permission denied on the client? > > Yep. And rmmod'ing the updated XFS module and insmod'ing the older > module makes it work again. Interesting - what are the exact versions of "updated" and "older" that you are using? I'll look at the diff... Thanks, -Eric > (yeah, in an ideal world we'd just run the latest kernel, but we're > stuck on RHEL4 for a bunch of reasons and XFS is so much better than > ext3 for our purposes, even with the old crufty version in the RHEL4 > kernel) >